ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No. D- 4254 of 2015

C P No. D- 288 of 2016

______________________________________________________________________ DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

14.03.2016

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Sangi advocate for petitioner in CP No.D-4254 of 2015 and for intervenor Abdul Khalique in CP No.D-288 of 2016..

Mr. J.K Jarwar advocate for petitioner in CP No.D- 288 of 2016.

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo, advocate for intervenor Muhammad Panah in CP No.D-4254 of 2015.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Nappar, advocate for intervenor Syed Zahid Ali Shah in CP No.D-4254 of 2015.

------

Mr. Sangi has filed a statement dated 14.03.2016 along with Annexures in CPD-No.4254/2015 which is taken on record. Para-wise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in CP No.D-4254 of 2015 whereas para-wise comments have also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 in CPD No.288 of 2016 which are taken on record, copy also supplied to learned counsel for petitioners.

Two applications under order 1 rule 10 CPC have been filed by proposed intervenors in CPD No.4254/2015 through M/S Ghulam Shabbir Dayo and Syed Jaffer Ali shah Advocates with a request to implead them as a party on the assertion that the proposed intervenors are also entitled to supply of water from water course i.e R.D No.L-91 Nara Canal Sukkur.

It appears that various parties are claiming their entitlement over R.D No.L-91 Nara canal, whereas, they are also claiming that they may be supplied water as per approved share list. Claims interse have been disputed by the parties, however, the official respondents have filed detailed comments which reflects that certain steps have been taken to resolve the dispute. Under the Irrigation laws, such dispute can conveniently resolved and matter can be settled by Canal Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer irrigation, whereas disputed facts can not be examined by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances in aforesaid constitution petitions, we would dispose of the same with directions to the concerned Canal Officers/Assistant Executive Engineer to hear all the concerned parties and resolve their dispute relating to supply of water as per share list in respect of RD No.L-91 Nara canal Sukkur, in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders. It is expected that such exercise will be undertaken preferably to within a period of four weeks from the date when the parties may approach and appear before the concerned officer. It is further observed that parties may be provided opportunity of being heard in accordance with law, whereas, no delay shall occur in this regard pursuant to some bogus claim or forged documents, if produced by any party in support of their respective claims.

In C.P No.288 of 2016, the SEPCO authorities are also directed to consider the request of the petitioner for return of their transformer in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate order thereon after hearing the concerned parties. It is expected that compliance report be submitted to this Court through Incharge Additional Registrar of this Court, within six weeks from the date of this order.

Both the petitions stand disposed of in the above terms along with all listed applications.

J U D G E

JUDGE

Irfan/PA