MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 05-08-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Ghanche whereby he dismissed the appeal CFA No,06/2005- 10/2008 of the said court, has been challenged through this revision petition.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit (Civil Suit No,27/2002-35/2002) in the court of Civil Judge First Class Khaplu/Mashabrum. Petitioners/defendants, comprised of two sets, contested the suit but through separate written statements. The first set of petitioners/defendants is the residents of Mouza Siksa Chorbat while the second set is the Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan etc. Through the suit, respondents/plaintiffs prayedfor declaration to the effect that they have the exclusive watering rights from the water of NaIlah Chorbat and order dated 19-06-2002 of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Khaplu, whereby, he allowed taking of water of Chorbat Nallah for the lands of petitioners/defendants. Respondents/plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction against the petitioners/ defendants. After completing trial proceedings, learned trial court passed decree dated 09-07-2005, decreeing the suit throughout. Feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners/defendants filed appeal, and through order/judgment dated 05-08- 2008, the then Additional District Judge Skardu dismissed the appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. The question debated before me is, whether the two courts below have come to the conclusion of concurrent findings on the basis of any misreading or non-reading of any eyidence, adduced by the parties? In this connection, it is not disputed that through the suit in hand, respondents/ plaintiffs prayed for declaration to the effect that they have the exclusive rights of watering in the water of Nallah Chorbat. I have gone through the documentary evidence of the parties. It is on record that villages called Dorah Gistan and Khew are the villages of petitioners/ defendants, set No,1, but are irrigated from the water of Nallah Chorbat. Likewise, Khirinia and Gamba Khirinia are also on the side of petitioners/ defendants but are being irrigated from the water of Nallah Chorbat. These very facts are evident from the documents Exh-D/A to Exh-D/G. Exh-P!1 and Exh-D!G are copies of the same document. Similarly, Exh-D/G and Exh-P!7 are copies of the same document. Exh-D/C and Exh-P/4 are Wajibul Arz of the two villages of respondents/plaintiffs and first set of petitioners/defendants.
The documents Exh-D/F and Exh-D/E are pertaining to rights of pasturing of first set of petitioners/defendants and respondents/ plaintiffs. Exh-D/F shows pastures of the first set of petitioners/defendants in the Nallah Chorbat. Joint perusal of above referred documents show at least four sources of water for the village of first set of petitioners/defendants and the Nallah Chorbat is among the said four sources of water. So, there is no documentary evidence showing exclusive rights of respondents/plaintiffs to the water of Nallah Chorbat. The above evidence, therefore, shows that the first set of petitioners/ defendants and the respondents/ plaintiffs have a common right of watering from the water of Nallah Chorbat.
4. The second set of petitioners/ defendants did not contest the suit as they admittedly did not file any appeal against the decree dated 09-07-2005 but have been arrayed as petitioners in this case.
5. The second aspect of the case debated before me is, whether the water of Nallah Chorbat, a common source of the respondents/plaintiffs and first set of defendants, can be used by either of the parties for developing a new land adjacent to either of the two villages? In my opinion, new villages can be developed only by the Provincial Government for Gilgit-Baltistan. The suit channel is admittedly meant for a new village and such villages can only be developed by the government through a proper scheme and that also first determining the rights of the people of the contesting parties to such lands. The landed property being irrigated through the suit channel is admittedly government land and the petitioner No, 2 is not only not contesting the suit but is silent spectator of such a huge scheme and have assisted construction of the suit scheme without first determining the rights of contesting parties to the said land.
6. In the sequel of above discussion, I hold that the impugned decrees/judgments of the two courts below are result of mis-reading of evidence, therefore, I had to pass the following order:-- a) The water of Nallah Chorbat, being natural resource, is State property and first set of petitioner and respondents/ plaintiffs have limited rights of watering their lands from the water of said nallah. b) Order dated 19-06-2002 of the SDM or Magistrate First Class Khaplu, has rightly been set aside by the two courts below. c) New villages can be developed and constructed only on the basis of any prior sanction of the government of Gilgit-Baltistan, for which the government of Gilgit-Baltistan is legally bound to do the same under certain planning. First set of petitioners or the respondents/plaintiffs are never free to execute any project of any new village etc. on their own or through any other NGO etc. d) Impugned decrees/judgments of the two courts below are varied in the light of sub-paras Nos, a to c of this para.
7. In the sequel of above discussion, his revision petition accepted partly in the light of above findings. Order accordingly. This file be consigned to record.