PLD 1959

P L D 1959 W (PLP)

THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus QASIM ALI‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Revision Side No. 22 of 1955‑56, decided on 26th January 1957. District Rahimyar Khan.
Honorable Judges
H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Parties THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus QASIM ALI‑Respondent
Primary Law Tawan‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Tawan‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus QASIM ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Tawan‑

Headnotes / Summary

Unauthorised irrigation by person ignorant of procedure of Canal Department and refugee from the place where there was no canal irrigation‑Penalty remitted.

Judgment & Decree

Tawan

Unauthorised irrigation by person ignorant of procedure of Canal Department and refugee from the place where there was no canal irrigation‑Penalty remitted. The latter was penalised by the Divisional Canal Officer on the ground that he obtained water in an unauthorised manner from his watercourse to the detriment of other shareholders. He was given a formal notice to mend matters and even then he failed to do the needful. The penalty imposed was Rs. 226‑14‑0 equivalent to six times the crop rates. The present respondent appealed to the Deputy Commissioner who, in exercise of powers as Commissioner, remitted the penalty on the ground that he was ignorant of the procedure of they Canal Department and that his action was not wilful but emanated from ignorance inasmuch as he is a Muhajir from the Hoshiarpur District where there was no canal irrigation. He had also suffered a considerable amount in pursuing his appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. I am not inclined to re‑impose a penalty on the respondent in the above circumstances, but it should be clear to him that if he misbehaves in future, he will be liable for the maximum penalty. A. M. C. Order accordingly.