PLD 1959

P L D 1959 W (PLP)

MANZOOR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Revision Side No. 46 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 MANZOOR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑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) (MANZOOR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Tawan‑

Representation

  • Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Unauthorised irrigation

‑Irrigation from some neighbouring perennial channel‑Penal under r. 32, Northern India Canal and Drainage Rules‑--Penalty imposed equivalent to six times crop rates, held justified.

Judgment & Decree

Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner. There is no doubt that if the petitioner received irrigation in a non‑perennial area and produced a Rabi crop which was found standing on 24‑12‑53, he had obtained that irrigation in an unauthorised manner from some neighbouring perennial channel. This is penal under rule 32 of the rules under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner without success. He then asked for a review and even this effort was not successful. The penalty imposed is equivalent to six times the crop rates. For such unauthorised action as above, there cannot be a smaller penalty. The petitioner had stated before the Deputy Commissioner that these irrigators had some lands on the perennial channel also but the other irrigators do not permit them to irrigate those areas. The Deputy Commissioner found in the Irrigation file that the Zilledar had reported that the defaulter's source of perennial irrigation existed at the spot. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision. A. M. C. Petition dismissed.