P L D 1962 W (PLP)

These two second appeals (R. O. A. No. 56 of 1960‑61, The State v. Haji Muhammad Ali etc. and R. O. A. No. 55 of 1960‑61, The State v. Haji Ahmad Din etc.) from the order dated 13‑6‑61 of the Additional Commissioner, Lahore may be taken up together, as the facts are the same. The Divisional Canal Officer, Gujranwala, had imposed special charges to the tune of Rs. 8,113‑2‑0 against the share holders adjacent to R. D. 210116‑L of Muridke Distributary for unauhorised irrigation from a cut on 2nd September 1959, and of Rs. 89,785‑8‑0 for a cut on R. D. 6830/R, Kala Shah Kaku of Muridke Distributary. The share‑holders went up in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Lahore. The police reports, accepted by the Ilaqa Magistrate, showed that it was a case of breach and not a cut. The Additional Commissioner held that it was not conclusively proved that irrigation was received by means of a cut, rather than a breach. He, therefore, accepted both the appeals and remitted the heavy penalties. Against this decision the Irrigation Department have filed two separate revisions, which will be disposed of by me in this single order. The Departmental representative was asked to convince me whether these appeals at all lie. He was not able to quote any authority. In actual fact there is a provision for appeals against the orders of the Commissioners under section 35 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. There was also a provision for revisions to the Financial Commissioners against the appellate orders of Commissioners under rule 100 of the rules framed under that Act in the Punjab. This provision was deleted under Notifi cation No. 3400/Rev., dated 23rd February 1938. Therefore, in so far as the former Punjab areas are concerned, no second appeal or revision lies. The Full Board in P L D 1958 W P (Rev.) 39 laid down the rule that a revision under section 5 (2) of the Board of Revenue Rules lies only if there is a provision for revision in a particular act under which the case had been decided. This being so, there is no force in any of the grounds of the two appeals which are dismissed. The representative of Irrigation Department laid great stress on the fact that his Department had lost Rs. 97,898‑2‑0 by way of penalties. The decision of the Additional Commissioner might possibly lead to litigation on account of claims of damages. However this may be it cannot be helped as the law stands at present. The policy in the changed circumstances of West Pakistan is for devolution of powers to commissioners. As such, it would be difficult to make out a case for amendments of rules providing for second appeals or revision with the Board of Revenue. Nevertheless a good case would appear to be made out for the provision of review of orders by the Commissioners themselves and the Department may move Government in this behalf. The Appeals are therefore dismissed in limine. A. H. Appeals dismissed.