HYDERABAD, Oct 22: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, on Friday directed the Sindh irrigation secretary, Sukkur barrage’s chief irrigation engineer, Nara canal superintending engineer and Mithrao canal executive engineer to consider request of four petitioners within three months for fresh sanction of water.

The court ordered that the petitioners would continue to get water from where they were getting now till decision on their petition.

The court gave the orders on a constitutional petition filed by four petitioners through Jhamatmal Jethanand advocate.

The petitioners said that they owned 270 acres of agricultural land in the Sanghar district and the land of other farmers admeasuring 1,013 acres in the Hingorno Deh was located on watercourses 7T and 8T.

They said the farmers of the watercourses were not getting water for several years and the respondent, Sukkur barrage chief irrigation engineer, rejected their request for sanction of watercourse from the Mithrao canal.

They said the irrigation secretary sanctioned a direct outlet to them at RD157.3 ex-Mithrao canal on fulfilling all formalities.

The petitioners said that they deposited the survey expenditure and maintenance charges and completed all legal formalities.

They said that the employees of respondents threatened them in September 2003 to close the watercourse 10Cl ex-Mithrao canal without any notice.

When the petitioners resisted, the accused called police to close petitioners’ direct outlet.

They claimed that the respondents disclosed for the first time in response to their petition that the watercourse 10CL was cancelled vide martial law order No 62 dated May 2, 1978 and the appeal was also rejected by the martial law administrator of zone-C.

They said that despite above illegal order the watercourse 10CL ex-Mithrao canal did not cease to function and was continuously working.

They said that they raised phutti, sugarcane, onion and other crops through direct outlet 10CL at RD157 Mithrao canal.

They said that these crops could not be raised through any other source except the present watercourse 10CL.

The petitioners said that the court had directed to continue its existing position at the site and the order was extended till May 11, 2004.

The petitioners’ counsel said the orders of May 2, 1978, and November 9, 1978, were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioners and other farmers.