2013 PLP 1296 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1296 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1296 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1296 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1296 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Iqbal Bhullar for Petitioners.
- 5. Learned counsel for respondent department has fully opposed this civil revision and contended that the petitioners have made a criminal assault against the respondents and have been violating the law, therefore, civil revision be dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 68-A
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42
Suit of petitioner assailing legality of order of Canal Department for making watercourse on land of petitioner was decreed by Trial Court and same was affirmed by Appellate Court
Appellate Court in its order stated that the order shall not preclude the respondent from moving an application under S.68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 for restoration of watercourse
Contention of the petitioner was that the matter had been finally decided by the civil court and the same could not be re-opened under the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873
Matter fell under the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 which provided adequate relief in case of any dispute
Order of the Appellate Court was in accordance with law and did not infringe rights of the petitioner
No illegality having been pointed out in the impugned order, revision was dismissed. Rana Shahshad Khan, A.A.-G. with Syed Raza Hussain Bukhari, Ziladar section Pakpattan, Canal Department.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are owners in possession of land fully described in para 2 of the civil revision. Agricultural land of the petitioners as well as the respondents was being irrigated from Moga No.13788/TF Rajbah Soochan. Respondent No.1 tried to make an illegal watercourse from the land of the petitioners which was not sanctioned in the record of irrigation department from North to South while the sanctioned Khal which is in operation is from East to West. Later on, respondent No.1 due to political influence obtained an illegal order from respondent No.2 for making an extra watercourse from the land of the petitioners.
2. That the father of the petitioners challenged the order of respondent No.2 by filing a declaratory suit which was resisted by the other party. Learned trial Court after framing of issues and record of evidence, decreed the suit of the petitioners on 11-11-2009.
3. That respondent No.1-filed an appeal which was dismissed on 2-6-2010 by the learned Additional District Judge but the learned appellate court after dismissing the appeal of respondent No.1 added para 10 in his judgment that the appellant may approach the Canal Officer for his redress.
4. That the petitioners against para 10 of the judgment filed a review petition before the learned appellate court that since the matter has been finally decided by the Civil Court so it cannot be re-opened under the Canal and Drainage Act but the learned appellate court dismissed the review petition without any reason. Hence, this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for respondent department has fully opposed this civil revision and contended that the petitioners have made a criminal assault against the respondents and have been violating the law, therefore, civil revision be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-2010, the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpatan Sharif has passed an exhaustive judgment. Para 10 of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under:-- "This order shall not preclude appellant from moving the application under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act to the Canal Authorities for the restoration of water course from the suit khasra or from any khasra for the irrigation of his land if so legally advised. If any such petition is moved by the appellant/ defendant, I am no doubt sure that the Canal Authorities will proceed in accordance with law."
8. Admittedly, the matter falls under the Canal and Drainage Act which provides adequate relief in case of any dispute. The impugned judgment and decree dated 2-6-2010 was passed in accordance with law and para 10 of the judgment is neither against the law nor this para infringes the rights of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment. Civil revision is devoid of merit, same is dismissed. KMZ/M-164/L Petition dismissed.