AHMAD HUSSAIN And OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE And Other
The petitioners, co-sharers of canal water, challenged the Irrigation Department's decision to sanction additional water to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, fearing a reduction in their own water supply. They sought an interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, the Additional District Judge, and subsequently by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the failure to serve notice under the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873 rendered the sanction of additional water invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because the Irrigation Department provided an assurance that the outlet capacity would be increased to accommodate the additional supply, thereby negating the petitioners' apprehension of irreparable loss. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when extra supply is provided from the existing outlet capacity, notice to co-sharers is not mandatory. The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the Canal authorities to ensure that the Warabandi remains unaltered to the detriment of the petitioners' water supply during the pendency of the civil suit.
- Is notice to co-sharers mandatory under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 when additional water is sanctioned from an existing outlet?
- Does the provision of additional water from an existing outlet capacity constitute a valid ground for an interim injunction by co-sharers?
- Section 20, Canal and Drainage Act 1873
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.
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.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA And 2 Others vs THE S.C.O. IRRIGATION CIRCLE 1989 CLC 1813
- Mirza NAZIR BEG vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 5 others 1987 CLC 1117