P L D 1958 W (PLP)
MAHINWAL‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1958 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MAHINWAL‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Tawan‑, (b) Tawan‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1958 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Tawan‑, (b) Tawan‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1958 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 1958 W (PLP) (MAHINWAL‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Unauthorised irrigation‑Technical opinion of Divisional Canal Officer‑--Entitled to great respect‑Irrigation file silent on the point as to how much area was to be irrigated in normal way and extent of undue benefit‑Penalty reduced. Unauthorised irrigation--‑Irrigators never been guilty of unauthorised irrigation before‑Penalty reduced.
Judgment & Decree
Unauthorised irrigation‑Technical opinion of Divisional Canal Officer‑--Entitled to great respect‑Irrigation file silent on the point as to how much area was to be irrigated in normal way and extent of undue benefit‑Penalty reduced. (b) Tawan‑-- Unauthorised irrigation--‑Irrigators never been guilty of unauthorised irrigation before‑Penalty reduced. The outlet of the irrigators runs close and parallel to the minor. When the two have run for some distance, there is a spot where, according to the Divisional Canal Officer, the irrigators used to cut the intervening bank and take direct supplies into the watercourse from the minor. I have the greatest respect for the technical opinion of the Divisional Canal Officer. I have no doubt that such a cutting was possible and that it must have been resorted to as observed 4 by him. He has, however, not tried to find out the extent of the undue benefit which the irrigators must have derived from this process, The Irrigation file is silent on the point as to how much area the cut was expected to irrigate in the normal way. The observation of the Divisional Canal Officer took place on 23‑9‑
53. The Tawan covers 90/91 acres. The Commissioner, who heard the appeal of the irrigators, has reduced the penalty of Rs. 3,179 (equivalent to six times the crop rates) to 1/3rd. I notice that the actual amount should have been Rs. 3,189, so that the penalty, according to the present orders, amounts to Rs. 1,
063. I am inclined to think that the defect mentioned above justifies a further reduction. I, therefore accept this petition for revision and reduce this already reduced penalty by , so that the irrigators will have to pay a penalty of Rs. 531/8/0. One of the reasons for allowing this reduction is that these irrigators have never been guilty of unauthorised irrigation before. A. M. C. Petition accepted.