' FAISAL ARAB, J.---The agricultural lands of the private respondents are irrigated through watercourse 1-DL located on Nabisar branch. Nabisar branch gets its water from Mithrao Canal, which is admittedly a perennial canal. Thus the watercourses on Nabisar branch flow round the year except when the canal/ branch has to be closed down in January for yearly cleaning of the silt. The watercourse 1-DL runs about nine miles to reach the lands of the private respondents and was originally sanctioned to flow without any rotation program. Thus prior to the start of the present controversy, there was no rotation on the watercourse 1-DL. It was for the first time enforced in the year 2005 by the irrigation authorities. According to the private respondents rotation program was enforced only on their watercourse and not on other watercourses located on Nabisar branch. The enforcement of this rotation program on watercourse 1-DL gave rise to dispute between the parties.
2. For redressal of their grievance, the private respondents filed suit against landowner Ali Akbar and functionaries of irrigation department. In the suit the private respondents sought declaration that enforcement of rotation program by irrigation authorities on their watercourse at the instance of Ali Akbar who allegedly commanded great political influence on the government of that time has reduced supply of water tremendously which has greatly damaged their standing crops.
3. In the written statement, particularly in paragraph 6, the defence that has been put in by the irrigation authorities was that as the banks of Mithrao Canal had become weak therefore it was unable to retain water to its sanctioned capacity and thus supply of water to Mithrao Canal was reduced which in turn, reduced supply of water to Nabisar branch and thus rotation plan was introduced on the water course 1-DL. It was also stated that work for reinforcing the banks of Mithrao Canal is in progress of which 60% earthwork has been completed and upon completion of the entire work of reinforcement of banks of Mithrao Canal, the supply of water to the sanctioned capacity would be restored and the rotation plan would come to an end. Thus the perennial flow of water from watercourse 1-DL as claimed by the private respondents in paragraph 7 of their plaint, was not denied in the written statement but the reason for enforcing rotation program on the said watercourse was shown to be only of a temporary nature i.e, only till such time the reinforcement work on the banks of Mithrao Canal is completed which at the time of filing of written statement in March 2006 was under progress and 60% work was completed. In paragraph 4 of the written statement it is also -stated that every year in January there is general closure of canals and branches for the purposes of undertaking de-silting work so that for the rest of the year the water flows at sanctioned capacity.
4. After recording of evidence, the suit was decreed. The appeal preferred by the irrigation authorities was dismissed. This Revision. Application has been preferred against concurrent finings of both the Courts below.
5. It may be noted that rotation plan is usually enforced amongst the farmers whose lands are irrigated from a common watercourse. It is not applied on one watercourse settled on a branch while other watercourses on the same branch flow without any rotation program. This would amount to discriminatory treatment. In the present case also watercourse 1-DL was sanctioned to flow perennially without any rotation program. The main reason for enforcing rotation was that the banks of Mithrao Canal had become weak therefore it cannot retain water to its sanctioned capacity and thus supply of water to Mithrao Canal was reduced which in turn reduced supply of water to Nabisar branch. For this specific reason given by the irrigation authorities, rotation program was temporarily introduced on 1-DL. It was the case of the irrigation authorities that in 2005-2006 work for reinforcing the banks of Mithrao Canal was being carried out and upon completion of the entire work the rotation program would come to an end and usual supply of water would stand restored. From the pleadings of the irrigation authorities themselves, it is evident that rotation program was only a temporary measure, introduced for the reason that the work of reinforcement of the banks of Mithrao Canal, which had become weak, was under progress. Thus except for such extraordinary circumstances, the private respondents had established their right to get water from 1-DL without rotation plan, which cannot be denied to them.
6. It may be mentioned that every year in the month of January a general closure of all the canals and distributaries is enforced by the Irrigation Authorities in order to carryout de-silting work. This enables the canals and-distributaries to carry water to their sanctioned capacity.
' If proper de-silting is not done then the capacity of canals and distributaries is reduced with the result the watercourses do not get the required water to their lands. This cause in disputes amongst the farmers of the area. It is the utmost responsibility of the Irrigation Authorities to undertake de-silting work for which sufficient allocation of funds are made by the provincial government in its annual budget. Enforcement of rotation program without carrying out de-silting work would certainly damage the agrarian based economy of this Country. The responsibility to undertake de-silting work was recognized by the Irrigation Authorities in the present case also in paragraph-3 of the written statement. Thus watercourses must get water without any interruption except when there is annual closure for the purposes of carrying out de-silting work or when work for reinforcing the embankments is to be carried out. In the present case the banks of Mithrao Canal were being fortified with the result that temporary rotation program was enforced. This rotation program was temporary in nature imposed only for the purposes of carrying out the works of reinforcement of the banks of A Mithrao Canal that was in progress in the year 2006 and cannot be made a permanently feature as against the original sanctioned flow watercourse 1-DL which was to run without any rotation program. Both the Courts below therefore rightly decreed the suit filed by the private respondents and this Court finds no legal justification to interfere with their conclusions.
7. In this case applications have also been filed by certain other landowners of the area for their joining as party to the proceedings. The case of the intervenors is that on account of short supply of water in Nara Canal i.e, 13500 Cusecs as against designed capacity of 18500 Cusecs there is less supply of water in Mithrao canal and Nabisar branch and therefore rotation plan was rightly introduced.
8. It is an admitted position the private respondents have been getting water from their watercourse 1-DL without rotation program as it was originally meant to flow perennially. Secondly when rotation program was introduced temporarily in 2005, the private respondents continue to get perennial supply of water from 1-DL on the strength of the injunctive order passed in the suit by the Civil Court in 2006. Thus private respondents, who were plaintiff in the suit, were getting water without any rotation plan. In spite of this continued supply of water to the private respondents on the basis of their original sanctioned right, the intervenors did not feel aggrieved and therefore never cared to seek vacation of the injunctive order passed in the suit in 2006 i.e, when the injunction order was passed. They have now-applied to be joined at belated stage in these proceedings in the year 2010 i.e, after five years, when the present proceedings have crossed both original and appellate stage. It seems that during this period they never encountered shortage of water to their lands on account of perennial use of water by the private respondents from watercourse 1-DL. Now after five years the intervenors suddenly feel aggrieved by supply of water to the lands of private respondents through watercourse 1-DL which is meant for private respondents only. The lands of the intervenors are not even shown to be settled on watercourse 1- DL as is evident from the contents of their applications. The applications of the intervenors therefore merit no consideration and are liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Application is dismissed in limine along with all listed applications.