P L D 1959 W (PLP)

A penalty at twice the crop rates is not very excessive. However one change is to be introduced that is in respect of the area described as `Rawani' in the figures of irrigation of both Kharif 1954 and Rabi 1955. The `Rawani' of Kharif would in due course be transferred to the next Rabi. The `Rawani' should not be charged on the basis of Rs. 13 per acre which is the Abiana due for an acre of sugarcane. The Irrigation Department took a long time in deciding the case and could have easily ascertained what were the crops actually grown in the fields entered as `Rawani'. The rates applicable to these crops should have been taken into account. If the `Rawani' was not converted into a crop, then the highest rate due for Rabi could be taken as a basis in respect of such fields. Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner. The penalty, which was imposed in this case, arose from an allegation that unauthorised supplies of water were drawn from outlet No. 18450‑R by tampering with the outlet so that the `Y' had increased from .44 to .58 and the authorised discharge from 1.29 to 1.61. The defect was found on 18‑10‑

54. Kharif irriga tion was found to be 258 acres and Rabi only 24 acres. The authorised irrigation in Kharif was estimated at 98 acres. Thus, the Irrigation authorities thought that unauthorised irriga tion had been employed for purposes of increasing the Kharif irrigation by 160 acres. It appears that the 258 acres included some fields which were prepared for the next harvest. Thus, the real irrigation in Kharif was 197 acres. Similarly, the real irrigation in the three previous years was 110, 144 and 152 acres. To my mind, there can be no doubt that the irrigation supplies drawn in the Kharif were in excess of the authorised discharges. A penalty could, therefore, be rightly imposed in respect of the Kharif irrigation as also in respect of the Rabi irrigation. The Divisional Canal Officer had imposed a penalty equal to six times the crop rates. The Deputy Commissioner reduced it to two times the crop rates on the ground that the irrigation authorities had been very slow in deciding the case. I consider that a penalty at twice the crop rates is not very excessive. I would, however, introduce one change, that is in respect of the area described as `Rawani' in the figures of irrigation of both Kharif 1954 and Rabi 1955. The `Rawani' of Kharif would in due course be transferred to the next Rabi. The `Rawani' should not be charged on the basis of Rs. 13 per acre which is the Abiana due for an acre of sugarcane. The Irrigation Department took a long time in deciding the case and could have easily ascertained what were the crops actually grown in the fields entered as `Rawani'. The rates applicable to these crops .should have been taken into account. If the `Rawani' was not converted into a crop, then the highest rate due for Rabi could be taken as a basis to respect of such fields. In the above circumstances, I accept this petition to the extent that the charges should be calculated afresh on the above mentioned basis. Otherwise, the penalty at twice the crop rates is upheld. K. M. A. Petition partly accepted.