HYDERABAD: A division bench of Sindh High Court Hyderabad circuit comprising Justice Azizur Rehman and Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui on Monday directed Sindh irrigation authorities to submit a list of direct outlets (DOs) in accordance with the schedule as provided under section 5 of the Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879 along with authority letters of their sanction.

The order was passed on three identical petitions filed by tail-end growers seeking cancellation of DOs on main Rohri Canal. The bench noted that pursuant upon its March 6, 2018 order, only details of direct outlets of Naseer branch system of Naseer division Hyderabad (Rohri Canal system) were provided to court. The list was also not provided. It said that the order be complied with in letter and spirit within six weeks.

Advocate Jhematmal Jethan­and represents 33 growers of the area in the three separate constitutional petitions. The petitioners have cited the chief engineer of Sukkur barrage, superintending engineer of Rohri Canal, executive engineer of Naseer division and assistant executive engineer of Khairpur Gamboh subdivision as respondents.

The petitioners submitted that their lands were located in the command area of channels/minors that emanated from the Naseer branch (Rohri Canal system). The regulatory mechanism of Rohri Canal is defined for an equal distribution of water to every acre under its command. Also, Rohri Canal water is the only source of drinking water for hundreds of villages/towns of many districts.

Petitioners seek cancellation of all ‘illegally’ sanctioned direct outlets

They submitted that under the Sindh Irrigation Act, Rules and Manual, there was no provision of grant of direct outlet on main Rohri Canal or Naseer branch. They said that a total ban was imposed on sanction of new outlets vide June 20, 1988 notification.

They informed the court that in 1999, the Sindh government realised that DOs affected equitable distribution of water and, therefore, an ordinance was promulgated cancelling 107 DOs. However, all DOs were not cancelled. Later, they said, the ordinance was declared illegal.

The petitioners submitted that despite that, the respondent functionaries continued to sanction DOs on Rohri Canal. They said there was no provision of rotation of channels/minors because the system was perennial hence supply of water could not be stopped. They said channels of Naseer division were closed for 15 days in a month and rotation was being executed by closing distributaries and minors alternatively every week. Some of them are closed for two weeks to stop supply to their land, according to them.

They said that no rotation was effected in Rohri Canal upstream, Nusrat, Dad and most irrigation divisions of Hala. Rotation was given effect only in tail’s channels of Hala division, they said, adding that all channels of Naseer division fell prey to the “pick and choose policy” which was unconstitutional, discriminatory and mala fide.

They prayed to the court to declare the respondent functionaries’ acts of granting DOs and shifting of watercourses as unlawful. They also urged that all sanctioned DOs be declared illegal.

Harassment, underage marriage case

The same bench directed the Umerkot SSP to appear in person before it on May 7 along with progress report of a case pertaining to harassment of a woman to force her to marry off her daughter, said to be underage, to a particular person.

The bench was seized with a constitutional petition filed by Umran Khaskheli, who stated that some influential private persons, including Umerkot district council’s vice chairman, SSP and four SHOs were compelling her to marry off her daughter in the family of one of the private respondents.

She said she had to announce her daughter’s engagement during a wedding ceremony on April 18 but the same day, the private respondents along with the SHO of the local women police station forcibly took her away. Ms Khaskheli said she and her sons approached the SHO to seek her daughter’s recovery but were detained and released only after her signatures were obtained on some papers. She said that her daughter was not freed nor was she produced in court despite an order of the Umerkot civil judge to the SHO to recover the girl.

She prayed to court to direct the respondents to recover her daughter and stop harassing her and her family.

Published in Dawn, May 1st, 2018