1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Muhammad Hanif, writ petitioner is owner of land in Mauza Bablian Uttar, Tehsil and District Kasur. He was being given water from Mogha No,5325/R. In the year 1998, he moved an application to the Authorities in the Irrigation Department alleging that proper water was not being given to his land through the aforesaid Mogha. 'this application was accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his order, dated 31-8-1998 which order was then confirmed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lahore on 6-5-1999.
2. Aggrieved by the orders of the Irrigation Department, Din Muhammad etc. Filed a suit against the petitioner alongwith others. The suit was filed on 4-9-1999. Initially stay was granted but when the petitioner appeared and submitted written statement, stay was vacated when the civil suit was fixed for 24-5-2000.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that civil suit, the subject-matter of which is order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, is still pending and during its pendency, Noor Muhammad etc. Moved an application to Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Kasur on 14- 9-1999 which was marked to a Magistrate for inquiry who concluded: {{URDU TEXT}} On receipt of the inquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur on 16-5-2000 ordered for registration of a criminal case which order has been impugned before this Court. The writ petition came up for hearing on 29-5-2000 when after preliminary hearing the same was admitted to regular hearing and status quo order was passed. The next date of hearing fixed was 6-6-2000 when the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that he had contacted the respondents but in spite of thadt nobody appeared and the case was adjourned to 13-6-2000 and stay was extended. On 13-6-2000, nobody on behalf of the respondents appeared and I was going to issue non-bailable warrants but the learned Additional Advocate-General assured that the respondents would appear on the next date of hearing. Today, the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and the concerned S.H.O. Are present.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that matter was pending before the Civil Court, no inquiry could have been held, stay order was vacated by the learned Civil Judge earlier granted to Din Muhammad etc. And the case could only have been got registered by the learned Civil Judge where the matter is pending challenging the orders of the Irrigation Department.
3. Further, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to order for registration of a case and that in the report of the learned Magistrate recommendations were made' for registration of a case against the Government officials who had issued the notification under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 but the case has been registered against petitioner with mala fides. In support of this petition, learned counsel has relied upon 1997 M LD 2097, 1991 PCr.L1 Note 126 at p.92 and 2000 PCr.LJ 888.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, learned Additional Advocate-General very candidly concedes that order to provide water to the petitioner from a specific Mogha was passed by the Divisional Canal Officer which order was confirmed by the Superintending Engineer being creature of a statute that is Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere in the said matter.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the report and the parawise comments submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur. The controversy/subject- matter of the F.I.R. Registered in pursuance of the order of Deputy Commissioner was brought under challenge in civil suit by Din Muhammad etc. Who also moved an application to the ADC(G), Kasur. Initially, stay was granted to Din Muhammad etc. But later on the same was withdrawn. The civil suit is still pending. During the interregnum, Noor Muhammad etc. Moved an application to the ADC(G) who marked the same to a learned Magistrate for inquiry and on that basis, the D.C.
6. Ordered for registration of a case. The orders admittedly having been passed by the Canal Authorities under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and the same having been assailed before the Civil Court, the Deputy Commissioner had no authority, to get a case registered or interfere into the order passed by the Canal Authority when he is neither the appellate nor the revisional authority and even does not figure anywhere in the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873.
7. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate held in his inquiry that the notification under section 20 of the Act, 1873 was issued by the Ziladar Amjad Karim in connivance with other officials of the Canal Department but vice versa the Deputy Commissioner ordered for registration of a case against the petitioner which is against the inquiry report. The learned Additional Advocate-General has also conceded the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. ' For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted and the order, dated 16-5-2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur is set aside and the F.I.R. No,247, dated 30-5-2000 under sections 420/468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sadar, Raiwind and the proceedings arising out of that F.I.R. Are hereby quashed. It has been brought to my notice that in pursuance to aforesaid F.I.R., one Khan. Muhammad has been sent to judicial lock-up. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kasur is directed to release Khan Muhammad forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
9. F .1. R . Quashed.