MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- Muhammad Nawaz was the original owner of land in squares 8 and 9. In the year 1972, he sold land comprising Killa Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 25 in Square No. 9 to Wali Muhammad, Mehmood ul Islam, Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Sadiq, respondents Nos. 1 and 4. Thereafter in the year 1976, he sold land in square No. 8 to the present petitioners. In Killa Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 25 of Square No. 9, Muhammad Nawaz was maintaining a Khal for irrigation of his land comprising both squares Nos. 8 and 9 and in the sale transactions made in favour of Wali Muhammad etc. The petitioners, mention was specifically made about the right of irrigation of the sold lands of both the vendees from the said (khal). Subsequently, however, in the year 1988 the Canal Authorities sanctioned the said (khal) which was objected to by the respondents, Wali Muhammad etc., the plaintiffs on the ground that the said (khal) having been constructed in the land owned by them having purchased from Muhammad Nawaz, could, not be sanctioned by the Canal Authorities.
2. The respondents filed suit challenging the sanction of the (khal) by the Canal Authorities, which was decree which has been maintained by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. The High Court has observed that the use of the said (khal) by the petitioners was only a's licence which could be withdrawn by the vendor at any time as the said (khal) was constructed by the vendor privately in his on land and the Canal Authorities could not regulate the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as regards right of irrigation of land from the
(khal) passing through Killas Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 25 in square No. 9 constructed by Muhammad Nawaz when he was owner of the entire land comprising both squares Nos. 8 and 9 which was subsequently sold by him to both the parties, therefore, the petitioners as a matter of right could irrigate their land from the said (khal) as per terms of sale-deed and agreement made by the vendor of the land at the time of' sale to both the parties, therefore, neither the vendor nor the respondents who stepped into the shoes, in whose sale-deed right of irrigation of land from the said (khal) had been mentioned, could interfere with the irrigation of land from the said (khal) by the petitioners and the petitioners could not be either treated or dealt with as licences qua the use of the said (khal). The petitioners, according to the learned counsel have no other source of irrigation of their land.
4. Notice to the respondents.
5. In the meantime, status-quo shall be maintained in that the petitioners shall continue to use the said (khal) for irrigation of their land and the respondents are hereby . Restrained from interfering with the same.