1993 PLP 200 (CLC)
SHAMS‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 200 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | MunirA. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | SHAMS‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 200 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 200 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: MunirA. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 200 (CLC) (SHAMS‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya for Petitioner.
- M.M. Jamal for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Mohammad Sadiq H.V.C. Islam Division Pallah (present) for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Canal & Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 68‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Restoration of dismantled Khal‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Order restoring dismantled Khal, was subsequently reviewed by Authority on application of respondent and petitioner had challenged order of Authority passed in review‑‑‑Order of Authority could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction as petitioner's land admittedly was getting water from regular Khal duly sanctioned by Authorities.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 68‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Restoration of dismantled Khal‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Order restoring dismantled Khal, was subsequently reviewed by Authority on application of respondent and petitioner had challenged order of Authority passed in review‑‑‑Order of Authority could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction as petitioner's land admittedly was getting water from regular Khal duly sanctioned by Authorities. Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya for Petitioner. M.M. Jamal for Respondents Nos. 3 and
4. Mohammad Sadiq H.V.C. Islam Division Pallah (present) for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1991. The grievance of the petitioner is that through order dated 29‑8‑19s‑t, the D.C.O. restored the dismantled Khal in square No. 145 under section 68‑A of the Canal and Drainage Act. The successive suits filed by respondents 3 and 4 against the said order were dismissed and on the fresh application of respondent No.3 the D.C.O. has passed another order on 28‑1‑1991 declining to restore the said khal in square No. 145.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that D.C.O. was not vested with power to review earlier order passed by the DCO on 29‑8‑1989. Be that as it may, from the order dated 28‑1‑1991 the D.C.O, has recorded a finding that in fact no khal was present in square No.
145. Learned counsel for the petitioners when asked whether the said Khal in square No. 145 which was allegedly dismantled was duly sanctioned by the Canal Authorities in any `warabandi' frankly conceded that at present he was not in possession of any such order but submitted that at the spot the same had been operating for the last many years.
3. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution as the petitioner's land is getting water from the regular Khal sanctioned by the authorities. The SDCO is hereby directed to take up the matter under Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act and pass order in the matter. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of H.B.T./S‑199/K Petition dismissed.