Through this petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the appellate judgment dated 3-12-1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Vehari, whereby he maintained the judgment passed by the Civil Judge dated 20-11-1996.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, as consequential relief against the respondents, contending therein that his land was situated in Square No,32, irrigated through Moga No,21805-R, Rajbah 7-L and its sanctioned Warabandi, was operating since 1964, that Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Sanchanwala, being sized of application of respondent No,3 and dismissed the same on 14-11-1993 holding; that Warabandi of Moga having already been a settled matter, no modification could be effected therein; that respondent No,3 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14-11-1993 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by respondent No,2 on 23-7-1995. The order of respondent No,2 was challenged in Civil Court by the petitioner being mala fide and violative of principle of natural justice.
3. The suit was resisted by respondent No,3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-- Issues: (1)Whether the impugned order dated 23-7-1995 passed by defendant No,2 regarding Warabandi is illegal, against law and facts, therefore, liable to be cancelled? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for? OPP (3)Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD (4)Whether the suit is barred by law? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the suit? OPD (6)Whether the suit is false and frivolous, hence the defendants are entitled for special costs under section 35-A C.P.C.? OPD (7)Relief.
4. Learned Civil Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20-11-1996. The appeal of the petitioner also failed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 3-12-1996, against which the present revision petition has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have mis-read the evidence on record and have erroneously dismissed the suit and appeal of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3 has stated at the very out-set that the petitioner has already been granted water from a separate Moga sanctioned on 22-10-1995 and under new scheme he is getting water from out let No,25512. He is no more aggrieved and the present petition has been filed just to harass the respondent No,3.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record placed on file. The order of the Divisional Canal Office, challenged by the petitioner, whereby he modified the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. After holding an inquiry and hearing the co-sharer of water, he has passed the just and proper order. The statement of Muhammad Suleman/respondent No,3 was relied upon by the Courts below on the ground that his land was situated after the land of the petitioner and the irrigation water was not conveniently accessable to his land and, as such, he was entitled to Nakal.
He also stated that Nakal water was available turn by turn, about 1-1/2 years before recording of his statement but now he was refused for the said right. Respondent No,3 states that, being owner in the joint Khata of 5 Acres, he was. entitled to Nakal water. The petitioner has not been able to point out any legal error in the judgments of the Courts below. The judgments of the Courts below are supported by the evidence placed on record and call for no interference.
8. At this stage, it may be added that a separate Moga has already been sanctioned to the petitioner on the application submitted by him for irrigation of his land. He cannot be permitted to litigate the matter in spite of the fact that he has a separate Moga for irrigation purpose.
9. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this petition and same is dismissed.