MUNIR ASHEIKH, J. -The grievance of the petitioner is that through order dated 29.8.1989, the D.C.O.
Restored the dismantled khal in square No.145 under section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act.
The successive suits filed by respondents 3 and 4 against the said order were dismissed and on the fresh application of respondent No3 the D.C.O. has passed another order on 28-1-1991 declining to restore the said khal in square No.145.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that D.C.O. Was not vested with power to review earlier order passed by the DCO on 29.8.1989. Be that as it may, from the order dated 28.1.199.1 the D.C.O.
Has recorded a finding that in fact no khal was present in square No.145. Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked whether the said khal in square No.145 which was allegedly dismantled was duly sanctioned by the Canal Authorities in any 'warabandi' frankly conceded that at present he was not in possession of any such order but submitted that at the spot the same had been operating for the last many years.
3. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioner's land is getting water from the regular khal sanctioned by the authorities. The SDCO is hereby directed to take up the matter under Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act and pass order in the matter. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.