P L D 1959 W (PLP)
RAHMAT ALI‑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 | RAHMAT ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Tawan‑ |
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) (RAHMAT ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Unauthorised irrigation--‑No direct evidence that mirror was cut and field irrigated‑--Penalty not justified‑--Reasonable way of assigning responsibility should be adopted.
Judgment & Decree
Unauthorised irrigation--‑No direct evidence that mirror was cut and field irrigated‑--Penalty not justified‑--Reasonable way of assigning responsibility should be adopted. I cannot understand what evidence the Irrigation Branch has acted upon in order to decide that the petitioner effected a cut in the bank of the minor. He is alleged to have cut the bank during the night and passed all the water that he could manage through the watercourse in order to reach his own fields. There is no evidence directly stating that he was seen doing so. There is no evidence that his area, which had received irrigation, was larger than what it should have been. There is no doubt that a cut for a breach might have occurred and might have been repaired by some unknown person, but there is no reasonable way of assigning the responsibility to the A present petitioner or of saying that he received unauthorised irrigation in his fields. In the above circumstances, I consider that tire special charges have been levied against him in an unreasonable manner. I accordingly accept his petition for revision and direct that the penalty in his case should be remitted. I notice that the Divisional Canal Officer had originally imposed a penalty equivalent to six times the crop rates and that the Commissioner had on appeal reduced it to . A. M. C. Appeal accepted.