P L D 1959 W (PLP)

The Divisional Canal Officer imposed a Tawan of Rs. 5,057‑10‑0; equivalent to six times the crop rates, on the petitioners on 4‑5‑

54. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order in appeal exercising powers of Commissioner on 28‑11‑54 and reduced the penalty to two times the crop rates: The complaint against the petitioners was that their outlet No. 2 on the distributary No. 1‑R was found damaged on 5‑8‑53 so that the `Y' had been increased from the authorised amount of .70 to .88 and the crest was also found damaged. The petitioners complained that this interference with the outlet must have been by some official of the Irrigation Branch (Probably a mate named Rehmat Ali) in order to do them harm. This story was accepted neither by the Divisional Canal Officer nor by the Commissioner. I am also not inclined to accept this defence. There is some confusion about the date on which the checking was done. The' Divisional Canal Officer's order and the appellate order of the Commissioner both mentioned the date as 5‑8‑

53. The first telegram which the Sub‑Divisional Officer issued in this case is present on the file in the form of a copy and is dated 6‑8‑

53. There is, however, a statement of two persons named Dilawar and Hanif, which tends to show that the checking was done and the damage found on 5‑8‑

53. The likelihood, therefore; is that the telegram was drafted by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on return from tour too late in the evening for despatch on that day. The telegram must have been despatched the next day, which was the 6th. The Commissioner has further mentioned that in a statement on the Irrigation file the date of the previous check was mentioned as 6‑8‑

53. This the Commissioner found rather odd. I also feel the same way, but I do not think that this has any material effect on the case. Obviously, the man, who was mentioning the date, recorded the date on which the damage was detected. The date of the earlier check is not material, because the Tawan is being levied only in respect of Kharif 1953. For deliberate interference with outlets, heavy Tawans are justified. The Commissioner has already reduced by 2/3rd the Tawan which had been imposed by the Divisional Canal Officer. I do not think that any further remission in favour of the petitioners is justified. The petitioners during the course of the Irrigation inquiries stated emphatically that they would like to make their statements before the Executive Engineer `instead of the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The Executive Engineer did not pay any heed to this request. But I feel that the petitioners cannot get any substantial benefit on this account at the stage of revision. The result is that I dismiss this petition for revision. A.M.C.??????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.