2009 PLP 2070 (YLR)
GHULAM QADIR through Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary through A.A.-G., Sukkur and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2070 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Aamer Raza Naqvi, J |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR through Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary through A.A.-G., Sukkur and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2070 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2070 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Aamer Raza Naqvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2070 (YLR) (GHULAM QADIR through Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary through A.A.-G., Sukkur and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farman Ali Kansero for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 91(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Change of water course
Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that water course - in question had already been changed and such change could not be recalled
Contention of the counsel for the authorities was that water course was recommended to be changed, but the other khatedars of the area having denied to have given "no objection," change of water course, had not been effected
Contention of the parties appeared to be factual controversy which could not be resolved in constitutional proceedings, particularly in view of S.91(2) of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879, wherein the procedure had been prescribed for change of sources. of water supply
Petition was disposed of with the directions that the Canal Officer, would give holders of the land likely to be affected a notice for the change of water course sought by the petitioner and would pass orders after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all concerned and that in case no settlement was arrived at after such hearing, the parties would be at liberty to avail remedy as provided in S. 91(2) (iii) of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879. Agha Athar Hussain Pathan, Astt. A.-G. along with Gul Hassan Memon, Executive Engineer, Irrigation East Division, Khairpur and Sharafuddin Bhambhan, Asstt. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Faiz Ganj Sub-Division.
Judgment & Decree
AAMER RAZA NAQVI, J.
Respondents 'have filed their comments which are taken on record. Copy has been supplied to Mr. Kansero. Mr. Farman Ali Kansero, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that watercourse has already been changed from 12-T Bego Minor to watercourse 6/9 Bego Minor. And therefore, such change cannot be recalled. On the other hand Mr. Pathan, learned Asstt. A.-G. submits on instructions that water course was recommended to be changed/transferred on peach (sic) at the request of petitioner. Along with such request no objection from the other Khatedars of area were also sub mitted. He further submitted that the said Khatedars have denied to have given any such no objection, therefore, the change of watercourse has not been effected. The above contentions of the parties appear to be factual controversy which cannot be resolved in the present proceedings, particularly in view of section 91 (2) of Irrigation Act, 1879 wherein the procedure has been prescribed for change of sources of water supply. According to the said provision of law, it is the function of Canal Officer to see that which mode or way of supply of water is efficient for the purpose of distribution, and in case of any transfer of source of water supply from any existing watercourse to another a notice is to be given to the other Khatedars. In view of no objection submitted by the petitioner said notices were not served upon the holders of the land who might be affected by the change of watercourse. Without service of notice and hearing as required under section 91 of Irrigation Act, 1879 no change in watercourse can be effected. In view of above facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-- (i) that the Canal Officer, respondents No.4 in present case, shall give holder or holders of the land likely to be affected a notice for the change of water course sought by the petitioner and shall pass orders after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all concerned; (ii) in case no settlement is arrived after such hearing, the parties shall be at liberty to avail remedy as provided in section 91 (2) (iii) of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879. With the above observations this Constitutional petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G-16/K Order Accordingly.