The petitioners through this writ petition have challenged the notification dated 18-6-1970 issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 75 read with section 36 of the Canal and Drainage Ad, 1873 whereby the double occupiers rates were prescribed.
2. This petition was admitted as Writ Petition No. 28 of 1971 and others had already been admitted.
Writ Petition No. 28 of 1971 was disposed of vide order dated 5-6-1976. The legality of enhancement of occupiers rates was also gone into in the case of Ch. Inayat Ullah and others v. Province of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1971 Lahore 482) an vide judgment dated 5-5-1970, it was held that non- increase in volume of water to some users is not a bar to enhancement of water rates which can be changed from time to time by an amendment of the schedule prescribed by Rules It was further held that no objection can be taken to the charge of occupier rate merely on the ground that the volume of water supplied is more or less, whole field was not irrigated by canal water or the water supplied through the channel partly comes from a canal and partly from a tubewell.
3. The plea amongst others taken in the instant case was that tubewell No.S0.20 which was installed in the estate of village chanan has neither been used by the petitioners nor is capable of any utility to them .As no watercourse has been provided by the Authorities, as such, the pet boners did not get even a drop of water from the aforesaid tubewell. It was urged that enhancement of water rate at double the rate is therefore without lawful authority.
4. The developments which have taken place since filing of the writ petition is that after the impugned notification dated 8-6-1970, another notification superseding the above notification was issue on 9-12-1970. There are other developments as well and the same have been taken note of in the order dated 15-6-1976 passed in W.P. No. 28 of 1970. These are that the Government has already decided to charge only single piers rate for the areas where tubewells were not installed, or if inst lied, bad stopped functioning (as from the said date) or where brackish water was supplied. The instructions of the Government which were placed before the High Court at the time of hearing of W.P. No. 28 of 1971 are not available with the learned Law Officer. The plea that water of tubewell could not be used by the petitioners as proper watercourse did not exist to provide water to the land of the petitioners. Was sought to be met urging that if there was watercourse, the land owners should have applied to the relevant Authorities for providing the watercourse. From the above stand taken by tire respondents it stands impliedly conceded that water from the tubewell in question was not received by the petitioners. The other plea that by installation of tubewell and its functioning the water-logging problem has been checked, however, remains available to the respondents. The question however, is whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief under the instructions later on issued by the Government.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General stated that the petitioners can approach the relevant Authority for re-consideration of their case in the light of latest instructions issued by the Government. This Court in the order dated 15-6-1976 passed in W.P. No. 28 of 1970 has laid down the procedure for claiming relief from the concerned Authority which is as under:-- "The petitioner claiming that he is liable to pay the single occupiers rate only may apply to the Division Canal Officer concerned, setting forth his claim in his application. If his claim is admitted to be correct, the Divisional Canal Officer concerned shall pass orders accordingly. If not, he shall summon the claimant and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and causing such inquiries to be made as are considered necessary by him in order to ascertain the factual position pass speaking orders in connection with the aforesaid claim."
6. The result of above discussion is that the challenge made to the notification fails but the petition succeeds to the extent that the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the Divisional Canal Officer concerned, set forth their respective claims in their application which applications will .Be considered in the light of Government instructions issued from time to time in this respect and disposed of, in the manner provided above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.