IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

Abdur Rauf etc. Vs D.C.O., etc.

INDEX
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Revision Petition
3 Affidavit
4 Copy of application. A
5 Copy of order. A/1
6 Copy of plaint, written statement + B, C & D
order & decree.
7 Copy of memo of appeal & judgment. E&F
8 Copy of Warabandi & map. G&H
9 Copy of Aks Shajra, Field Book & I, J & K
Parcha Khatooni.
10 Dispensation application.
11 Affidavit.
12 Stay application.
13 Affidavit.
14 Power of attorney.

PETITIONER,
Dated: __________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

1. Abdur Rauf S/o Raziq Bakhsh

2. Zulfiqar S/o Allah Ditta
3. Muhammad Safdar S/o Muhammad Ramzan
4. Muhammad Aslam S/o Saeed Ahmad
5. Muhammad Farooq S/o Raziq Bakhsh
6. Zahoor Ahmad S/o Raziq Bakhsh
7. Muhammad Azhar S/o Faiz Bakhsh
8. Muhammad Aslam S/o Muhammad Ramzan
9. Muhammad Hafeez S/o Muhammad Saeed
10. Muhammad Mazhar S/o Faiz Bakhsh
11. Muhammad Akhtar S/o Allah Ditta
12. Muhammad Riaz S/o Muhammad Nawaz
13. Muhammad Ramzan S/o Qadir Bakhsh
14. Muhammad Iftikhar S/o Allah Ditta
All Arain by caste, residents of village Jallah Arain, Tehsil
Dunyapur, District Lodhran.
……PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. Division Canal Officer, Lodhran Canal Division, Multan.
2. Province of Punjab, through District Officer (Rev), Multan.
3. Faiz Bakhs S/o Ghulam Qadir caste Arain, R/o Chah Khair
4. Abdul Qadir S/o Ilahi Bakhsh Wala, Vilalge Jalla Arain,
Teh. Dunyapur, District Lodhran.
…RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
 CIVIL REVISION PETITION U/s 115 C.P.C.

CLAIM IN REVISION: -
To set aside the impugned order and decree
the suit of the petitioners.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the petitioners are residents of Basti Khair Wala, situated in

Square No. 106 of Village Jallah Arain, Tehsil Dunyapur, District
Lodhran.

3. That respondents No. 3 & 4 filed an application before the

D.C.O. (respondent No. 1) requesting that Canal Water Course in
Khasra No.’s 140/1-2-3 has been dismantled by Allah Ditta a co-
sharer of the outlet No. 43600/R, Mehmood Distributory, the
same may be restored for their irrigation. (Copy of application is
Annex “A”).

4. That the Divisional Canal Officer sent the application to field

staff for investigation and report. The Zilladar visited the site and
after thorough investigation recommended restoration of the
dismantled water course water course and sent the case to
S.D.C.O. who agreeing with the report of Zilladar re-submitted
the same to D.C.O. for further action.

5. That D.C.O. without issuing any notice and hearing the

petitioners vide order dated 23.5.2000 directed excavation of
the Khal in Khasra No.’s 106/21-22-23 (which at site is a running
Katcha road and the only approach to Basti Khairpur) instead of
dismantled watercourse in Khasra No.’s 140/1-2-3. (Copy of
order is Annex “A/1”).
6. That the petitioners challenged the above said order of the D.C.O.
through a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The
learned trial court vide its order dated 12.9.2001 decreed the suit
of the petitioners against the defendants, however, the defendants
were allowed to approach Canal authorities for redressal of their
grievance.
(Copy of plaint, written statement and order & decree are
Annexes “B, C & D”).

7. That the defendants filed an appeal against the said order of the
trial court, which was accepted by learned appeal court directing
the trial court to decide the same on merits hence, this revision
petition. (Copy of memo of appeal and judgment are Annexes “E
& F”).

8. That order of the appeal court dated 29.3.2002 is illegal, void,

against the law and justice, hence, liable to be set aside inter-alia
on the following amongst others: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned orders is against the law and facts,

unjust, arbitrary, improper and untenable as the order of
the Canal authorities impugned in the suit were contrary
to law, facts and ultravires to the rules prescribed in the
Canal & Drainage Act.

ii) That learned appellate court has failed to observe that

the D.C.O. has passed the order for restoration of the
impugned water course U/s 68-A without pendency of
application under section 68 of the Canal & Drainage
Act, which is a condition procedure for passing order
U/s 68-A of the said Act.

III) That the learned appellate court while passing the

impugned order has also failed to note that Canal
supply of the respondents No. 3 & 4 as is evident from
the record i.e. sanctioned warabandi of the outlet and
 Chak plan (map) of the outlet No. 43600/R from where
the respondents No. 3 & 4 get water. The Nakka for
taking water for the respondents have been sanctioned
at point Khasra No. 140/121 from where water course
upto the land of the said respondents on the Southern
and Eastern side of Square No. 140. (Copy of
Warabandi and map are Annexes “G & H”).

IV) That the learned court did not notice that as per revenue
record, on the Southern side of Khasra No. 106/21-22-
23, there is a sanctioned village road which is the only
approach to Basti Khairpur, of which the petitioners are
residents. The impugned water course if excavated from
the road, will result in depriving the petitioners from the
said road. (Copy of Aks Shajra, Field Book & Parcha
Khatooni are Annexes “I, J & K”).

v) That the learned court below has wrongly held that

water-course in Khasra No. 106/21-22-23 was
dismantled. The application of the respondents No. 3 &
4, inqury reports of the field staff i.e. of Zilladar &
S.D.O. who after visiting the spot recommended
restoration of the water course from Khasra No.’s
140/1-2-3. The order of the court below is the result of
non-reading and misreading of record of the Irrigation
Department and that of the Revenue Department.

vi) That the learned court below has also erred while
holding that wrong mentioning of Khasra No.’s cause
no material defect. As a matter of fact, the water-course
impugned in the suit run in Khasra No. 140/1-2-3 and
the same was dismantled. The respondents also field
application for the restoration of the same. Inquiry of
the field staff also relates to the said water-course,
hence, the D.C.O. has no power to travel beyond the
four corners of the application and inquiry reports of
field officers. The respondents had changed their stand
 before the D.C.O. with malafide intention just to harm
the petitioners. The learned trial court has rightly held
that there was no case for restoration of the impugned
water-course, hence, the interim order U/s 68-A could
not be passed by the D.C.O. and rightly decreed the suit
of the petitioners.

vii) That the learned court below also failed to observe that
D.C.O. in terms of section 68-A of Canal & Drainage
Act was competent to order the restoration of the
dismantled water-course during pendency of the main
petition. Different route could neither be chalked out
nor resorted to the purported exercise of such power.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, it is

respectfully prayed that this revision petition may
very graciously be accepted, the impugned order
of the learned court below may kindly be set
aside and that of the trial court be restored.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit may graciously be awarded in the
interest of justice and equity.
Humble Petitioners,

Dated: ________
Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
this is the first revision petition on the
subject matter. No such petition has earlier
been filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
Reliance is placed on: -
i) Abdul Qayyum Vs. Niaz Ahmad
SCMR 1992-613
ii) Nasreen Begum etc. Vs. D.C.O. etc.
1994-CLC-1178
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

Abdur Rauf etc. Vs D.C.O., etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Abdur Rauf S/o Raziq Bakhsh, caste Arain, R/o village
Jallah Arain, Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled revision petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Abdur Rauf etc. Vs D.C.O., etc.

Application U/s-151 read with Order 41, R-5 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of Civil Revision may please be treated as
part & parcel of this application.

2. That the applicants will face irreparable loss if the interim

relief is not granted.

3. That the balance of convenience and balance of justice is in

favour of applicants.

4. That the applicants have a prima facie arguable case in their

favour.

In view of the above humble submissions, it is

prayed that proceedings before the trial court may very
graciously be stayed till final disposal of the instant
revision petition.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of
justice and equity.

Humble Applicants,
Dated: ________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Abdur Rauf etc. Vs D.C.O., etc.

STAY APPLICATION.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Abdur Rauf S/o Raziq Bakhsh, caste Arain, R/o village
Jallah Arain, Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled application are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Abdur Rauf etc. Vs D.C.O., etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this
Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as
part & parcel of the main petition.

2. That certified copies of Annexes “ ” are not readily

available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same
have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of
the original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the
filing of aforesaid copies of documents.

APPLICANTS,
Dated: __________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.