PLD 1959

P L D 1959 W (PLP)

IRRIGATORS OF MOGA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Revision Side No. 142 of 1955‑56, decided on 25th January 1957. District Bahawalpur.
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 IRRIGATORS OF MOGA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
💡 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: statutory provisions 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) (IRRIGATORS OF MOGA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Fazal Elahi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Tawan--‑ Unauthorised irrigation‑‑Irrigators misbehaving for first time=Penalty imposed, reduced to four times crop rates.

Judgment & Decree

Unauthorised irrigation‑‑Irrigators misbehaving for first time=Penalty imposed, reduced to four times crop rates. Fazal Elahi for Petitioner. The outlet was supposed to run through a diameter of 4". The socket etc., were, however, broken and removed with the result that the flow was through the large pipe of 10" diameter. The result was an increase in the discharge from 56 to 1.7 cusecs. At the spot, 76 acres received irrigation against the authorised figure of

36. The penalty imposed is Rs. 2,250‑6‑0, being equivalent to six times the crop rates. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal in toto. I, however find that this is the first time the irrigators of this outlet have misbehaved. I, therefore, consider that the penalty imposed A should have been lower than the maximum. I accordingly accept this petition for revision and direct that the penalty should be reduced to four times the crop rates. A. M. C. Appeal accepted.