Law:

Section:

NAIMUDDIN, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are The petitioners and respondents 4 to 32 are the Khatedars of lands situated at watercourse 9-T, Ex-Ranipur Minor, Khairpur District.   Zawar Qaim, respondent 2, and Hidayat Ali. respondent 3. are the owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 8, 28/2, 30/1, 32, 648, 683, 690, 691, 692, 753. 754 and 849 situated irk Deh Miani and settled at water course No. 9-T, Ex-Ranipur Minor. They have also lands bearing Survey Nos 243, 244, 2'2, 253, 254, 2 s5 in Deh Daraaa which are settled on water course No. 3-R, Ex-Daraza Minor. Tney applied for transfer of beech from watercourse No. 3-4 Daraza Minor to watercourse No. 9-T Ex Ranipur Minor, Khairpur District, in order to consolidate the area on the same watercourse for better cultivation. Their case was recommended by the Executive Engineer Irrigation. West Division Khairpur, to the Superin tending Engineer, Khairpur Irrigation, for approval vide letter No. IC/L;-55/ 4581 dated 30-12-1971. The Superintending Engineer, by his order dated 12-1-1972, sanctioned the change subject to observance of all the formalities under section 91 of the Irrigation Act, 1879 (hereinafter called the Act).   Thereafter, it appears, that the Executive Engineer invited objections from the Khatedars of watercourse No. 9-T, Ex-Ranipur Minor. Since they were opposed to the change the Executive Engineer, Irrigation West Division Khairpur, inside a reference under section 91(3) of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur, who by his order dated 31-1-1973 remanded the case to the Executive Engineer with the direction that he should dispose of the matter after bearing all the Khatedars. The Executive Engineer heard the Khatedars and vide his reference dated 30-7-1973 submitted that 10 out of 43 Khatedars were agreeable to this change. The matter was therefore, again considered by the Deputy Commissioner, who disapproved of the change by his order dated 15-12-1973, mainly on the ground that 43 Khatedars had objected to the transfer of the beech and that the balance of convenience was on the side of the petitioners.   Aggrieved by the aforesaid order…