P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Sheikh BASHIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Sheikh BASHIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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) (Sheikh BASHIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (XVIII of 1873), S. 70 (12)‑Unauthorised irrigation‑Canal Administration to guard against unnecessary harassment of irrigators who, finding their outlets damaged, themselves make a report to the authorities Overseer's. report not accepted by Divisional Canal Officer cannot at the same time be made basis for penalty.
Judgment & Decree
Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (XVIII of 1873), S. 70 (12)‑Unauthorised irrigation‑Canal Administration to guard against unnecessary harassment of irrigators who, finding their outlets damaged, themselves make a report to the authorities Overseer's. report not accepted by Divisional Canal Officer cannot at the same time be made basis for penalty. In this case the damaged outlet was detected by the Sub Divisional Officer on 2‑10‑
54. The damage to the outlet had, however, been earlier reported by the irrigators to the Sub Divisional Officer on 20‑8‑1954 vide their application dated 8‑8‑54 at page 53 of the Irrigation file. The Overseer had been asked to see the spot and to mend the damage. The Overseer reported on 26‑9‑54 saying that he had inspected the spot on 6‑9‑54 but this report of his was not sent to the Sub‑Divisional Officer till 10‑10‑
54. The Canal Divisional Officer has formed the opinion that this) petition of the irrigators was meant as `Peshbandi' and they had colluded with the Overseer in order to draw unauthorised supplies. I find this conclusion far‑fetched and I think that the Administration should guard against causing harassment to people who find their outlets in a damaged condition and immediately report the matter to the Irrigation authorities concerned. It is quite possible that between the 20th August and the 2ndl October 1954, the damage may have increased. The Overseer's report has not been accepted by the Divisional Canal Officer and it is odd that the contents of that report should again be used for imposing a penalty on the irrigators. In the above circumstances, I consider that it would not be fair to uphold the order imposing a penalty in this case. I accordingly accept this petition for revision and direct that the whole penalty should be remitted. A. H. Petition accepted.