1991 PLP 1423 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 31 & 33‑‑‑Canal and Drainage Rules, R.33‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑"Tawan" imposed on petitioners by Divisional Canal Officer‑‑ Validity‑‑‑"Tawan" in question, having been imposed by competent Authority acting under Ss.31 & 33, Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, no justifiable exception could be taken to such imposition‑‑‑Constitutional petition against the imposition of "Tawan" was dismissed in circumstances. Kania Lal and others v. Narain Singh and others 50 IC 299 and Zulfiqar Ali and another v. Superintending Engineer, Multan etc. P L D 1957 Lah. 70 ref. Nisar Arshad Kotla for Ch. Hamid-ud‑Din for Petitioners. Maqbool Elahi Malik, A: G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th May, 1991. The petitioners in this Constitutional petition have assailed the order dated 24th October, 1972 whereby the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and thereby refused to interfere in the order, dated 24th October, 1972 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, Sargodha whereby the appeal of the petitioners was partly accepted and the `Tawan' imposed by the Divisional Canal Officer was reduced from Rupees 12,463.71 to Rupees 6,231.85. . The grounds urged in support of the petition are that the `Tawan' was imposed on the alleged violation of stay order dated 27‑6‑1970 Passed by the Divisional Canal Officer suspending the operation of the order dated 22‑6‑1970. It was also urged that the Divisional Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the stay order and as such no `Tawan' could be imposed for alleged violation of the said stay order. This question appears not to have been urged before the respondent Authorities as there is no mention of the same in any of the orders passed by them. The proceedings were initiated by respondent No.6 who had not been included in the Penal `Warabandi' sanctioned vide order dated 27‑6‑1970. He, therefore, initiated proceedings before the Divisional Canal Officer for including his name in the `Warabandi' as otherwise his standing crops were likely to suffer. The contention of the learned counsel that the respondent No. 6 could not have initiated these proceedings as he was not shareholder of the outlet is without substance. Firstly nothing has been brought on record to substantiate this plea. Secondly Divisional Canal Officer respondent No.4 in the report has taken the position that the land of respondent No.6 was receiving water according to `wara‑bandi' sanctioned by the then Divisional Canal Officer vide No.1691‑W, dated 10th February 1964. This aspect makes the observations made in Kania Lal and others v. Narain Singh and others (50 Indian Cases 299) inapplicable to the instant case. Reliance cannot also be placed on Zulfiqar Ali and another v. Superintending Engineer, Multan etc. (P L D 1957 Lahore 70), as the question involved in the said case was different. The `Tawan' has been imposed by the competent authority acting under sections 31 and 33 read with Rule 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1973. No justifiable exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned orders. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./G‑450/L Petition dismissed.