P L D 1959 W (PLP)
AMAN ULLAH‑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 | AMAN ULLAH‑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) (AMAN ULLAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Unauthorised irrigation‑--First offence of tampering with outlet--‑Total irrigation up-to-date less than authorised irrigation ‑Penalty reduced to twice crop rates.
Judgment & Decree
In this case, the Divisional Canal Officer imposed a total penalty of Rs. 7,000‑12 (equivalent to six times the crop rates) for tampering with an outlet so as to increase the diameter of the opening from 9" to 10", and thus increasing the discharge from 3.19 to 3.45 cusecs. It appears that two appeals were lodged before the Deputy Commissioner one on behalf of Ali Muhammad etc., and the other on behalf of Rehmatullah etc. The former was rejected on 10‑3‑
54. When the second one came up for consideration, the doubt was removed about the two cases being separate from each other and the Deputy Commissioner decided on 4‑7‑54, that the decision made on 10‑3‑54, would apply to the appeal of Rehmat Ullah etc., also. The decision of 10‑3‑54 left the amount intact but directed that the Tawan would be levied not from the Muhajirs but from the persons in possession. The revision petition was heard by the Financial Commis sioner of the former Bahawalpur State and he decided on 25‑11‑54, that the Deputy Commissioner should decide the matter once again after giving full opportunity to the Muhajirs as well as the local tenants. The Deputy Commissioner passed his final order on 2‑1‑55, reducing the amount of the penalty to four times of the soil rates, leaving untouched his decision about the liability of the actual persons in possession. The Deputy Commissioner in deciding to reduce the amount has taken into account the fact that the owners and the cultivators are very poor people, and would not be able to pay such a large amount. I notice that the defect in the outlet was detected on 26‑6‑
53. It was found that an area of 185 acres had received irrigation, the total authorised area for Kharif being 204 acres. If the unauthorised irrigation had continued longer, the total irrigation would have exceeded the 204 mark. The irrigators denied having tampered with the outlet. This denial cannot, however, be of any avail to them, because the width of the outlet opening cannot increase unless it is deliberately tampered with. 1, however, feel that since this was the first offence of the irrigators, and also because the total irrigation up-to- date was less than the authorised irrigation, the amount of penalty should be reduced further. I, therefore, accept this petition for revision and direct that the penalty should be reduced to twice the crop rates. The Muhajirs not in possession will not be required to pay and instead the persons actually in possession of their lands will be required to pay. A. M. G. Petition accepted.