HYDERABAD, Sept 1: The Hyderabad circuit bench of the Sindh High Court on Friday appointed Chief Engineer Sukkur Barrage Agha Aijaz as arbitrator to settle a dispute between a petitiner and irrigation officials within one month after both parties expressed their willingness to appointment of arbitrator since the matter is of a technical nature which can well be appreciated by a person having concern with barrage.

The court said that chief engineer should hear the parties and give his decision.

The petition was filed by taluka nazim of Qasimabad Noor Mohammad Shoro, citing secretary irrigation, chief engineer and executive engineer Kotri barrage sub-division, Veir sub-division, district nazim and DPO of Hyderabad and TPO of Qasimabad as respondents.

He said that he had invested around Rs10 million on cotton, banana and dates on agricultural lands in Deh Shah Bukhari, Hatri and the crops are ripe for picking. He said that district nazim visited Kotri Barrage and directed the irrigation and police officials to cut protective bund where his agricultural lands were situated adding that irrigation authorities intended to cut the bund between fish farm and agricultural land and it would cause him loss of Rs10 million.

He maintained that in the same area he had constructed protective gates for irrigation water in the land and fish farm but irrigation functionaries, without any notice, threatened to cut the bunds.

He said that he was cultivating land since his forefathers and by looking to previous high floods it was not necessary for irrigation department to cut the bund as flood intensity is not that high.

He added that the district nazim had a long standing political enmity with him as he had demanded raise in number of UCs in Qasimabad taluka and proposal was accepted by Sindh chief minister.

He described initiative of irrigation department to cut bunds as not justified without serving any notice which is against principle of natural justice, therefore, such action was illegal.

He said that he was informed by chief engineer Kotri Barrage about their action very late, he immediately tried to contact Sindh government functionary as he apprehended illegal action against him.

He claimed that irrigation department was not utilising budget allocated for protective embankments by Sindh government.

He said that ever since he came to know about this initiative on August 16 he had no option but to invoke jurisdiction of this court and added that on August 19 irrigation officials entered his lands illegally and cut protective bunds raised by him.

He said that officials had also destroyed 20 feet wide piece of road between bund and petitioner’s lands which was built in 1954.

He prayed the court to declare action of respondents of demolishing private protective bund constructed by petitioner on his land as illegal and they should be restrained from cutting protective bund of Kotri Barrage and private embankment or pay damages of Rs10 million.

The executive engineer in his comments said that all the survey numbers mentioned by petitioner as his property in fact belonged to irrigation and power department, as per official land record.

He attached map of Deh Shah Bukhari. He said that any thing raised inside the land is illegal against the flow of water which could cause damage to barrage.

He maintained that petitioner had no right to construct anything in the way of river or its flow which was against prescribed standard operating procedures (SOPs) and safety manuals of barrage.

He said that irrigation department was competent to control, manage, maintain or otherwise responsible as far as canals, rivers and barrages and other water related safety issues are concerned therefore timely decisions were taken to safeguard human lives and livestock.

He said that chief engineer Kotri barrage visited the site and issued both verbal and writing directives to get katcha zamindar bund removed and demolished at once which was constructed by petitioner with malafide intentions.

He added that several instructions were issued to petitioner but in vain. He said that petitioner himself had admitted that it was a private bund, raised by him at his own sweet will.