Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AHMAD HUSSAIN And OTHERS VS Respondent: PUNJAB PROVINCE And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafi-ur-Rehman, Abdul Qadir Sheikh Title: AHMAD HUSSAIN And OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE And Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1418 of 1980 Civil Revision No.
1216 of 1980 Date of Judgment:1980-12-08 Reported As: 1987 SCMR 769 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were sanctioned additional canal water for their garden by the Irrigation Department. The petitioners who are co-sharers of the water from the same out-let felt aggrieved as they assumed that any increase in the canal water sanctioned to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 would automatically diminish their share of water. They, therefore, challenged the validity of the aforementioned sanction of the Canal Authorities through a civil suit. Alongwith it they also filed an application for an interim injunction. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 14-6-1980. The petitioners filed an appeal against it before the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who dismissed the same on 2-7-1980. The petitioners then filed a civil revision before the High Court but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. 2. The main contention of the petitioners' counsel was that the petitioners had not been served with any notice under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873, before sanctioning additional water to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. This contention overlooks that an extra supply of 5$ is always provided for on every outlet and if extra water is supplied to any one from that in such a case no notice needs be given to the co-sharers. Moreover, in the present case the Department made a statement before the learned Civil Judge that the supply of the capacity of the out-let shall be increased to the extent of 1.3 cusics. Consequently, the petitioners' apprehension that their supply of water shall be diminished whereby they shall suffer irreparable loss appears to be unfounded.
---
## Page 2
3. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with the observation that in view of the assurance given by them the Canal authorities shall ensure that during the pendency of the civil suit Warabandi is not so altered as to diminish the quantity of wafer supplied to the petitioners as a result of the extra supply of water supplied to respondents 3 and 4.