ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J. -This judgment will dispose of two appeals, Intra-Court Appeal No. 92 of 1982 and Intra-Court Appeal No. 108 of 1982, as these arise in similar circumstances.
2. The appellants were allotted land under the Grow More Food Scheme some time in the year 1976.
For water to irrigate the land, the appellants having had no relief from the authorities concerned applied to the Minister, Irrigation and Power, who on 30-5-1977 ordered that "please include in C . C . A . And report compliance within seven days". The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur, sent a memorandum to the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, on 1-6-1970, pointing out the aforesaid and the fact that a report on the subject had earlier been submitted on 28-5-1977. He concluded the memorandum saying "kindly advise on the issue".
The Ministry fell. Two years went by before the appellants could reach the Advisor to M.L.A./Governor on Irrigation, Punjab, Lahore, on 7-6-1979, who passed the following order:- "Chief Engineer may examine the allegations and allow water to the area allotted by the Government on temporary lease. The question of Betterment Tax for the additional cost for the supply of water on regular basis when this is agreed to by the Irrigation Department would be considered and necessary orders would be issued by the Board of Revenue. The supply of water where feasible may be allowed."
In pursuance of the above, the Superintending Engineer, Bahawalpur Canal Circle, Bahawalpur, submitted a memo. To the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur. The concluding paragraph of which is as follows: - "In view of the directions of Advisor for Irrigation on the application of the applicants, the request of the applicants can be considered and canal water can be allowed temporarily on terms and conditions that will be decided by the Government for such areas. The case is submitted for favour of consideration and approval."
The memorandum is dated 26-6-1979. Subsequently, in pursuance of instructions from the Government of Punjab, vide Secretary Irrigation and Power Department Division, No.S.O.(R) 18-7- 1978, dated 17-4-1980, Superintending Engineer, vide his order, dated 2-9-1980 sanctioned water only for Kharif, 1980. While the matter was being dealt with on the administrative side, the appellants filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, vide order, dated 3-4-1982. Hence these appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has forcefully contended that the Minister concerned had ordered on 30-5-1977 inclusion of the areas under the allotment of the appellants in C.C.A.
(culturable commanded area) and I had asked for compliance report within seven days.
Consequently, the appellants were supplied water and they paid Abyana etc. Hence, the order of the Minister having been given effect to, the same cannot be withdrawn. He placed reliance on Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himyatullah Farukhi PLI) 1969 SC
407. He has vehemently urged that the appellants are many in number and were given the land for growing more food They are doing that and earning their livelihood. They should not be deprived of the water.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondents has submitted that the areas allotted to the appellants lie outside the culturable commanded area. The water available is not ever enough to meet the demands of the areas lying within the C . C . A .
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the Minister on 30-5-1977 had been acted upon and conse--quently it could not be withdrawn, is not well-based on facts. From a perusal of the order of the Minister, it would appear that he was directing the authorities created under the statute, Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, to include the area of the appellants in C.C.A. From the letter of the Chief Engineer, dated 1-6-1970, Annexure 'A' with the: writ petition, it would appear that the departmental authorities had not, included the area of the appellants in C . C . A . And in view of the order of the Minister, the Chief Engineer was asking the Secretary to the Government of Punjab to "Advise on the issue". Consequently, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Minister was an order to have effect per force. It was to be given effect to by the authority under the relevant statute. The matter remained pending when the appellants approached the Advisor to M.L.A./Governor, who directed the Chief Engineer, Bahawalpur to examine the case and allow water to the areas allotted by the Government on temporary basis. From this, it would appear that the Advisor had directed the Chief Engineer to examine the case and allow water to the areas allotted to the appellants. In pursuance of this order and in consequence of a policy decision by the Provincial Government communicated by the Secretary, vide memorandum dated 17-4-1980, the Superintending Engineer on 2-9-1980 allowed the appellants to have water for Kharif, 1980 only.
Thereafter, the appellants are having water in consequence of the litigation in which an interim order in their favour has been passed.
6. From what has been stated above, it would be quite apparent that the case of the appellants for supply of water has been taken up at the highest level once by the Minister in 1977, and later by the Advisor to M.L.A./Governor in 1979, who directed the Chief Engineer to examine the case and allow water to the areas allotted by the Government. The proper thing for the appellants is to pursue their case before the relevant authorities. The order of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference.
7. In view of the above, the two appeals are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.