26/04/2017
سنڌ جي پڇڙي جا آبادگار سپريم ڪورٽ جو ھي فيصلو پنھنجي علائقي جي ڪنھن وڪيل صاحب کان وٺي پڙھن جيڪو کين مدد ڏيندو ھن فيصلي ۾ سپريم ڪورٽ ڊي آء جي حيدرآباد سميت سنڌ جي ڊي پي اوز کي حڪم ڪيو ھو ته اھي پڇڙي جي آبادگارن کي پاڻي مھيا ڪن ۽سندن حق چوري ٿيڻ جي صورت ۾ سندن ايف آء آرون داخل ڪن جنھن ۾ ايريگيشن وارن کي حڪم مليل آھي ته اھي به پڇڙي جي آبادگارن سان تعاون ڪن۔ ايڊوڪيٽ ھاء ڪورٽ آف سنڌ
2014 SUPREME COURT 353.
Side Appellant:ACTION AGAINST GIVING OF DIRECT OUTLETS FROM NASEER BRANCH ROHRI CANAL BY CHIEF MINISTER SINDH..... Opponents
S. 28(d)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 430---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution against sanctioning of direct water outlets from Naseer Branch Rohri Canal on the orders of the Chief Minister---Equal share in Canal water---Tampering of water outlets of Canal ---Water theft---Grievance of petitioners was that water outlets from the Canal in question were sanctioned in favour of influential and interested persons without acknowledging that due to such act, land of farmers situated at tail end of the Canal did not get water equal to their share because before reaching the tail most of the water was taken by upper riparians---Provisions of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879 were required to be strictly followed so that nobody could encroach upon the rights of others, as farmers were earning their livelihood to protect and secure their own life and that of their families, which was a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution---Provincial Secretary for Irrigation submitted a report in court wherein he stated that he had visited all the water outlets; that all possible measures were being taken to redress the grievance of petitioners; that tampering of water outlets had been stopped, and that there would be strict supervision to ensure that no violation of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879 was committed---District Police Officer (DPO) informed the court that fresh F.I.R. under S. 430, P.P.C. had been registered, and instructions were passed onto police officials to fully cooperate with the staff of irrigation department and take prompt action on their complaints---Petitioners stated in court that after passing of orders by the Supreme Court in relation to present petition, farmers whose lands were situated at the tail of the Canal were also getting their share in Canal water---Supreme Court directed that concerned Deputy Inspector General of Police and District Police Officers should take action against persons involved in water theft etc., and that before approaching the police, irrigation authorities should satisfy themselves that there was a violation of law---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
