' A Warabandi was sanctioned in respect of the rights to the water by the order of Divisional Canal Officer of 1967. Subsequently the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer to whom the powers had been delegated in the meantime passed an order on 15-3-1971 modifying the original Warabandi. The change that took place was t, the effect that the Nakal of the water that had been allowed to the respondents in the Worabandi of 1967 was taken away from them and given to the appellant. The respondents filed a suit challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer dated 15-3-1971 and the suit was decreed on 7-6-1971. The appellant filed an appeal against the decree but the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 15-4-1978. The second appeal has been moved in the case to consider the legality of the judgments of the Courts below.
2. Mr. M. Z. Babar, learned Additional District Judge, Jhang in his judgment dated 15-4-1978 dismissing the appeal has observed that the authority competent to order the Warabandi was the Divisional Canal Officer and therefore, the order by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer which had been set aside by the trial Court was in any case bad as the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer did not have the authority to pass such an order. This observation of the lower appellate Court is contrary to law because the law had undergone a change and the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer had been vested with the necessary powers of ordering the Warabandi but this is not enough to determine the second appeal as the judgment of the trial Court could be sustained on other grounds as well
3. Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 gives the powers to the Canal authorities to resolve the dispute regarding the distribution, use and maintenance of the watercourse but also lays down that the final decision made by the Canal authorities shall remain in force until it is set aside by a decree of the civil Court. The consistent view of the Supreme Court in this regard is that even though the decision of the Canal authorities is final yet they are competent to settle the differences if any fresh differences arise. In the present case there was no evidence to show that there was any fresh dispute between the parties regarding which the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer exercised his powers. The issue of Nakal was determined in 1967 and the Warabandi thus ordered remained in force for for years, under which the respondents were receiving the Nakal. Farid appellant appeared as D. W. 4 in the case before the trial Court and made a statement to the effect that the Warabandi had been in force for a period of 4 years and that he had made no objection before the Divisional Canal Officer in 1967 regarding the Nakal being given to the respondents. The question of Nakal was, therefore, not a new point of difference between the parties which could be agitated before the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer. The decision of the Divisional Canal Officer of 1967 to that extent was final and could not be altered as no new difference hid arisen between the parties. This learned Civil Judge, therefore, had rightly set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer dated 15-3-1971 and decreed the suit. There is no force in this --'appeal. It is dismissed with costs.