P L D 1959 W (PLP)
THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL and others‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL and others‑Respondents |
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) (THE STATE‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Deputy Collector for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 33‑Tampering of moga intended for purposes of obtaining unauthorised supplies during subsequent months‑No penalty can be imposed on that account. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ismail Deputy Collector for Petitioner. Respondent in person. The respondent's counsel as sent in a petition requesting for an adjournment. I have, however, decided to proceed with this case to‑day, because this date had been given to suit the counsel's convenience. The penalty which had been imposed in this case by the Divisional Canal Officer in respect of Rabi 1952 was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner on appeal, but the Financial Commis sioner of the former Bahawalpur State remitted it on revision vide his order dated 7‑2‑
55. The Irrigation authorities want me to review the last mentioned decision. The defect the outlet was found on 8‑2‑
52. The `Y' appeared to have been increased from Order LXLII to 1.05. On that day, the channel was not running. The Canal authorities had checked this outlet on 27‑12‑51 and found it intact. In these circumstances, it has to be ascertained whether any unauthorised supplies had been obtained during the period from 27‑12‑51 to 8‑2‑
52. There is no evidence in order to show that any such supplies were obtained. It is possible that the tampering of the Moga, detected on 8‑2‑52, was intended for purposes of obtaining unauthorised supplies during the subsequent months, but no penalty can be imposed on that account. The legal view expressed by the Financial Commissioner of the former Bahawalpur State in his order dated 7‑2‑55 is not quite correct. These Tawan cases are not dealt with as cases; under section 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act. They are really cases under rules 31 and 32 of the rules under that Act and the joint responsibility of the irrigators is enforced on the same principle as in section 33 of the Act. In the above circumstances, I do not find any justification for re‑imposing a penalty on the respondents. It, therefore, dismiss this petition for review. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.