M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The facts giving rise to this petitions for grant of leave are that at the instance of the petitioner, a fresh warabandi was sanctioned by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer on 1-1-1971 but in appeal the order was set aside and the matter was remanded by the Divisional Canal Officer. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, however, again maintained the warabandi earlier sanctioned by him. I n appeal which followed, the Divisional Canal Officer, by order dated 9-11-1973, restored the warabandi of 1963 and allowed the respondents to have their outlet at Killa No. 1-25. It is to be noted that the petitioner's lands had been irrigated through an outlet at this killa while the lands of the respondents through an outlet at Killa No. 1-21. The petitioner instituted a declaratory suit to challenge the order of the Divisional Canal Officer but the suit was dismissed on 26-6-1975.
An appeal preferred by her was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Lyallpur, on 8-1- 1977. The petitioner then brought Civil Revision No. 284 of 1977 but the learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the same in limine on 2-6-1977, observing that the petitioner was in fact seeking to challenge the warabandi of 1963 which being a new point could not be allowed to be taken up and that her suit to challenge that warabandi would even otherwise be badly barred by limitation.
2. The contention is that the Divisional Canal Officer had not only restored the warabandi of 1963 but had also sanctioned a new outlet at Killa No. 1-25 through the petitioner's land and that as such the High Court was in error in holding that the petitioner was only seeking to challenge the warabandi of 1963. The petitioner has in ground (d) of her present petition herself admitted that she had challenged the warabandi of 1963 which had resulted in the initial order of the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer dated 1-2-1971. That being so, the prescribed period of limitation of one year would apply to the suit if it challenged that warabandi. It is not known if the outlet now sanctioned had already figured in the warabandi of 1963. No copy of the warabandi of 1963 is in the paper book. However, it appears from the judgments of first two Courts below that the question of sanction of a new outlet for the respondents' land had been before the Canal Officers. An application in that regard had been moved by one Ghulam Muhammad, and the present respondents who had purchased the land from him had pursued the matter. It, therefore, cannot be said that the sanction of a new outlet at Killa No. 1-25 wits entirely a new decision. In any case, that was a matter within the competence of the Canal authorities and we find no justification for any interference in their decision. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.