' RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 27-1-2011 passed by the SDCO/respondent No,1 under section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 on an application of respondent No,3 for restoration of the dismantled watercourse from Khasra No,84/6- 7-8 of Haveily Mubarik Shah Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal. The respondent No,3 had contended that he has been using the "Khal" for irrigation of his land for a long time but Bashir Ahmad, Manzoor Hussain, Ashiq Hussain and Haji Zafar etc. Had demolished the same per force and resultantly he has been deprived of the means of irrigation and there was an apprehension that his crops would be spoiled. After spot inspection and local inquiry, the impugned order was passed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per observations made in para No,3 of the impugned order, the disputed "Khal" had never been sanctioned and as such no order for its restoration could be passed; that the land in dispute is owned by the petitioner, which was lawfully gifted to him by his father namely. Manzoor Hussain and' as such neither the respondent No,4 nor the Canal Authorities have any right to excavate the watercourse from it; that under section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 old watercourse is to be restored on the original site and the new watercourse cannot be excavated; that the old watercourse came under the road and was demolished by the revenue authorities so neither it cannot be restored nor new "Khal" can be excavated from the land of the petitioner and that the appeals pending before the DCO or the civil suits pending before the civil courts have no bearing on the outcome of this petition because the petitioner is not party to the litigation or proceedings. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on PLD 1992 Lahore 370 and 1994 CLC 1178 (Lahore).
3. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G. And the learned counsel for the respondent No,3 have contended that the local inquiry revealed that the "Khal" was illegally demolished and the respondent No,3 has been deprived of the means of irrigation; that the marks of demolished "Khal" and "Pakki Pullies" (small bridges) are still present at the spot, which prove an illegal act on part of the petitioner; that the matter is subjudice before the civil court and the appeals filed by the father of the petitioner and other relatives are also pending before the DCO and that their petitions for grant of ad-interim injunction have already been disallowed. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 further contended that in fact the land comprising of Khasra No,84/6-7-8 forms part of the joint Khata so respondent No,3 is owner of every inch of the same being co-sharer in the Khata and as such he has the right to get the "Khal" restored from it and that it was merely an internal "Khal" so no sanction was required for the same.
4. The plan maintained by the Irrigation Department clearly reveals that the "Khal" was on the line of Khasra No,84/6-7-8 and 13-14-15. The respondent No,1 not only held the local inquiry but also inspected the spot and found that the marks of demolished "Khal" and "Pakki Pullies" were present at the spot. The notice was issued to all the concerned, they were heard and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the competent authority by exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under the law. The impugned order is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. It is clear from the report that the internal "Khal" leading from the sanctioned watercourse to the land of 'the respondent No,3 has been demolished and he has been deprived of the means of irrigation.
Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 was added with the sole object to provide interim relief to the farmers in case of unauthorized interruption or disturbance in the watercourses. An order under above mentioned previsions of law is final and cannot be interfered with through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under section 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 unless it is proved that the same is patently illegal or the concerned land owners have not been afforded an opportunity of hearing or that the requisite inquiry was not conducted by the Canal Officer before passing the order. The respondent No,1 not only afforded full opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties but also inspected the spot and verified the position existing thereon. Neither the "Khal" is being constructed on the land exclusively owned by the petitioner nor was any approval required for internal arrangement made by the farmers. The petitioner may agitate his contention before the concerned authorities during hearing of the main petition under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the, petitioner is not applicable on the facts of the present petition. It is also an admitted fact that the matter is not only sub judice before the civil court but appeals filed by the father of the petitioner and others are also pending before the DCO and their applications for grant of interim injunction have been dismissed. It is clear from the order that respondent No,3 has been deprived of the means of irrigation and his contention that his crops would be spoiled, is not without substance. He would suffer irreparable loss if the "Khal" is not restored. A co-owner cannot deprive the other co-owner of the means of irrigation per force. For the reasons supra, the petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.