Haji MURAD ALI And Others vs THE POLITICAL AGENT, CHAGAI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a dispute over water rights from a stream known as Manda-e-Khaiser. The petitioners, claiming to be upper riparian landowners, sought a declaration and injunction against private respondents, alleging interference with their water supply and attempted dispossession. The trial court initially granted an interim injunction, which was subsequently vacated by the Additional District Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court in civil revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that their position as upper riparians made interference by downstream respondents unlikely, yet feared potential forceful obstruction. The respondents denied using force and undertook to pursue any grievances regarding water rights solely through official legal channels. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence of forceful interference and given the respondents' undertaking to act through legal agencies, there was no ground for interference. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it does not ordinarily interfere with interlocutory orders of a tentative nature, as parties must establish their respective cases during the full trial.
- Does the Supreme Court ordinarily interfere with interlocutory orders of a tentative nature?
- Can a party seek an injunction based on a mere apprehension of force without supporting evidence?
- Is a statement by a party to pursue grievances through official agencies sufficient to resolve a dispute regarding potential interference with water rights?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the Judgment, dated 12-7-1990 passed by the High Court.
2. The dispute relates to a stream of water known as Manda-e-Khaiser. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging therein that the private respondents approached the Collector for correction of entries concerning the source of irrigating the petitioners' land from the said stream of water. It was further alleged that the private respondents have attempted to dispossess the petitioners with the intention of depriving them from using the water from the said stream. Alongwith the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed. The suit was contested by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners was disputed. It was alleged that water for the purpose of irrigation was being strictly utilised by the petitioners. The stream Manda-e-Khaiser is a part of Joi Nushki and the three tribes have exclusive right to use it. The application for interim injunction was also contested. The learned Civil Judge granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession over tile land and water.
3. This order was challenged in appeal before the District Judge which was disposed of by the learned Additional .District Judge, who accepted the appeal and vacated [lie order of the trial Court. The petitioners then challenged the order of the Additional District Judge in a Civil Revision which was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to tile facts of the case. The admitted position, according to the learned counsel, is that the petitioners arc upper riparians. The unofficial respondents are down below at a distance of sixteen miles from the land of the petitioners. It cannot, therefore, appeal to reason that the respondents are interfering in the flow of water.
5. The learned counsel then submitted that the respondents may by force stop the supply of water by raising some construction at the place from where the petitioners are taking water. There is no material to substantiate this contention. The respondents had approached the authorities for correction of entries concerning source of the irrigating land from the above-mentioned stream.
6. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that they have not us9d any criminal force against the petitioners and there is also none on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents made a statement that any action to stop the supply of water would be taken by them through the official agencies. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of such statement, does not press this petition. Even otherwise, the order is of tentative nature. The parties will have to go to the trial and establish their case before the Court. This Court does not ordinarily interfere in such type of interlocutory orders.
7. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.