The petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondents to challenge order dated 21-2- 1991 passed by respondent No. l i.e. Superintending Canal Officer, Thal Canal Circle, Mianwali on the ground that it was without jurisdiction being against law.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner's land was irrigated from outlet No.28800-R flowing from Rajbah Bahar Minor. The land of respondent No.3 was also situated in the same command area and was irrigated from, outlet No.21890/R from the aforesaid Minor. The respondent aforesaid made an application dated 8-10-1988 for the shifting of his land measuring 7 or 8 acres from outlet No.21890-R to outlet No.28800-R on the ground that the aforesaid land could not be irrigated from the former outlet. The petition was sent to respondents Nos.2 and 4 for necessary proceedings. The notices were issued to the affected parties and after hearing them the petition moved by respondent No.3 was dismissed on 9-12-1990 by respondent No.2. The order of dismissal was sent for confirmation to respondent No. l in view of the provisions contained in section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The order of respondent No.2 was also challenged in appeal by respondent No.3 before respondent No. 1. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 was accepted by respondent No. l on 21-2-1991, whereby water for irrigation was granted to the former from outlet No.28800-R.
3. The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 27-11-1995 and appeal filed by them was also dismissed by Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan, learned Additional District Judge-II, Muzaffargarh vide his judgment dated 2-9-1996.
4. The present Revision Petition was filed to challenge both the orders of the Courts below on the ground that provisions contained in section 20 of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 were misinterpreted by the learned Courts below as respondent No. l had no right to reverse the decision of the respondent No.2. In this regard it was alleged that section 20 ibid provided that Superintending Canal Officer could only confirm or modify the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer but could not reverse the same. While relying on 1984 CLC 2158 Lahore, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that modification of the decision will include reversion of the decision and as such there was no violation of the provisions contained in section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act.
5. It is clear from the above facts that before passing the impugned order allowing irrigation to the respondent No.3 from outlet No.28800-R, notices were issued to petitioners and they were heard in the matter. On this question of fact, both the Courts below have concurred and there is no scope for reopening the same while taking up this revision petition for consideration. However, the objection that the Superintending Canal Officer could only confirm or modify the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer and could not reverse the finding would not be tenable under law because if the power is vested in an authority to confirm or modify a decision, then it has also the power to de-confirm, set aside or reverse the decision, which would amount to modification of the finding in dispute. It is unfortunate that section 20 ibid is not happily worded because it has not expressly said that the Superintending Canal Officer can also reverse the finding of the Divisional Canal Officer, but the language of the section would impliedly suggest that this power is vested in him which includes de---confirmation and modification of the decision made by the Divisional Canal Officer. The scheme of law further shows that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer is only of tentative nature and will only attain finality after it is confirmed or modified by the Superintending Canal Officer. This leads to an interpretation that since the decision of the Superintending Canal Officer will be final in the matter, therefore, while exercising the power of modification or deconfirmation of the order of Divisional Canal Officer, the Superintending Canal Officer can also set aside the same and may allow a petition to give appropriate relief to a deserving party as a controlling or superintending authority.
6. In view of above discussion, I have not been shown any misinterpretation of law by the Courts below nor it has been found that respondent No. 1 had assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in him or that the impugned order suffers from any patent legal defect. The Revision Petition being meritless is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.