Law:

Section:

Riwaj Aabpashi-Interpretation, question of law-Time and area material factors-Ignoring one or other-Material irregu larity-Revision competent-Civil Procedure Code (V of-1908), S. 115 (c).   ORDER   This dispute between the parties falls under section 43 (2) (a) of the Minor Canals Act as the main point in issue is about their mutual rights in the water of Katha Doha which passes through the two villages of Doha and Totki, district Peshawar to which the parties belong. The Riwaj Aabpashi prepared at the settle ment of 1926-27 states the position prevailing at that time as follows:-   The area situated in village Totki which can be irrigated from Katha Doha consists of Khasra Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, i.e. 6 fields with a total area of 58 kanals 17 marlas Nehri falling in the category of first class. Further on it is stated:-   Village Doba holds a joint share in Katha Doha to the extent of 1/3rd and village Totki 2/3rd. The turns are allotted to the two villages in periods of three days and nights by means of drawing lots. The respondents who belong to village Totki which is situated down stream of Katha Doba were irrigating quite a lot of their lands from another Katha known as Katha Jandrat Abdullah Khan. This was washed away three years after the Settlement during a flood in the river Jandi from which these Kathas take off. 1n 1960 the respondents brought a suit claiming that they could irrigate any of their lands within the period of one day and night allotted to them and that this had become necessary as Katha Jandrat Abdullah Khan which formerly irrigated a considerable part of their holding had been washed away and for technical reasons could not be re-excavated. The Collector decided in their favour primarily-on the ground that though the respondents wanted to irrigate lands other than those specified in the Riwaj Aabpashi but they wanted to do so within the period allotted to them. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner has upheld this decision. The defendants Sikandar Muhammad Iqbal etc. have come up in revision. Mr. Pir Bakhsh the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no interference in revision was tenable as…