' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-2-2002 of the learned Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The respondent Jagan Khan instituted a suit for declaration challenging the validity of order dated 6-7-1991 of respondent No,2, S.E. Circle Bahawalnagar whereby he reviewed his previous order dated 14-3-1990.
3. It was averred in the plaint that respondent No,1 was co-sharer of outlet No,43 with Habibullah and Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and their land measuring 25 acres was being irrigated through Moga No,42.
Hakim Ali, their attorney, had filed an application for shifting of land from Outlets Nos.42 and 43 before respondent No,4 who forwarded the same to respondent No,2. An appeal was filed before respondent No,2 who accepted the same and set aside the order of respondent No,4 vide order dated 14-3-1990. One Muhammad Fazil defendant No,2 in the suit was neither attorney of the abovementioned Khatadar Habibullah nor was conferred any authority by them, filed a review petition before respondent No,2 who vide order dated 6-7-1991 allowed the same and reviewed abovementioned order dated 14-3-1990. The suit was contested by defendants Nos.5 to 18 and the learned trial Court vide his judgment dated 9-1-1999 decreed the suit and set aside the order dated 6-7-1991. Defendants filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar who vide his judgment dated 25-1-2001 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners assailed this order through revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.
4. We have heard Mr. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and gone through the record in minute particulars.
5. The learned Advocate Supreme Court mainly contended that both the lower Courts and the learned High Court have failed to properly appreciate the provisions of section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and rule 99 of the Canal and Drainage Rules whereby it is only the Canal Authority to resolve controversy between the landowners regarding any problem about irrigation purpose and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. According to him, the Courts below have failed to peruse the order dated 6-7-1991 which clearly shows that all the Khadedars/landowners were served and they were given lot of opportunities to deposit the fee of the Commission and it was after inspecting the site, the earlier order was reviewed.
6. Section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act stipulates that whenever an application is made to a Divisional Canal Officer for supply of water from a canal through watercourse or change of source of water supply of any land and he considers it expedient, shall give notice to all persons interested including the landowners through whose land any link watercourse is to pass, to show cause on a day not less than fourteen days from the date of such notice why the said supply should not be so conveyed, or the source of supply be changed and after making enquiry on such day the Divisional Canal Officer shall determine, whether and on what conditions the said supply shall be conveyed through such watercourse or that the source of waste supply shall be changed or the link watercourse shall be aligned and constructed.
7. After the announcement of the decision of the Divisional Canal Officers, if no objection is received or an application is received, then due opportunity of hearing is to be provided. It is thereafter Superintending Canal Officer may confirm or modify that decision and such orders are binding on all persons responsible for the maintenance of the said watercourse. It is pertinent to note that the request for change of watercourse was rejected by the S.C.O. Vide order dated 14-3-1990 and it was thereafter the matter was re-open on review application about which there was no such provision. Moreover, from the record as well as from the impugned order, it transpires that no notice was issued to all the shareholders of the Moga. Such order passing in absence is violative of principle of natural justice thus is not sustainable in law.
8. Since there are concurrent finding on the question of facts and law recorded by the lower Courts as such we do not find any reason to interfere . With the same. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment which accordingly is maintained. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.