P L D 1984 Peshawar 48 (PLP)
MOHABAT. KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHTAMIM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS -Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1984 Peshawar 48 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Usman Ali Shah, Actg. C J |
| Parties | MOHABAT. KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHTAMIM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1984 Peshawar 48 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1984 Peshawar 48 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Usman Ali Shah, Actg. C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1984 Peshawar 48 (PLP) (MOHABAT. KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHTAMIM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rehman Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar Khan for Respondents Nos. 4 to 8.
- Date of hearing : 12th October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ‑‑
0. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873), S. 32‑Temporary injunction‑Reduction of irrigation water‑Peti tioners failing to bring on record any material to show that they were deprived of some irrigation water available to them before introduc tion of new Warabandi‑Courts below, held, rightly declined to issue temporary injunction in favour of petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑
0. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873), S. 32‑Temporary injunction‑Reduction of irrigation water‑Peti tioners failing to bring on record any material to show that they were deprived of some irrigation water available to them before introduc tion of new Warabandi‑Courts below, held, rightly declined to issue temporary injunction in favour of petitioner. Abdur Rehman Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Akhtar Khan for Respondents Nos. 4 to
8. Date of hearing : 12th October, 1983. The petitioners herein are owners of agricultural land under water. The respondents applied to the Irrigation Authorities for the amendment of Warabandi which was amended by the Authorities, therefore, the petitioners were aggrieved by the new Warabandi and filed suit for declaration that they were deprived of irrigation water to their lands for half an hour. Along with the plaint the petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunc tion which was dismissed by. the learned trial Judge and the appeal of the petitioners before the District Judge also failed having been dismissed by order dated 20‑6‑1983. Hence this revision application. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. A reference to the impugned order of the learned District Judge will show that the petitioners had not filed a copy of the new Warabandi, therefore, he observed that it can yet be determined as to what amount of irrigation water was reduced from the share of the petitioners in favour of the respon dents. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show that in the absence of any material for the present on record how can it be determined that by the introduction of the new Warabandi, his clients were deprived of irrigation water for half an hour. He did not make a satisfactory reply in this behalf. In these circumstances, I observed that even if the quantity of water for irrigation was reduced from the lands of the petitioners, yet it is not possible to hold so unless evidence in this behalf is recorded. Even otherwise, the respondents will have the right to show that the new Warabandi introduced for the irrigation of the agricultural lands in the vicinity is proper and is doing justice between the parties. The petitioners will have also the right to lead evidence in rebuttal and it is for the trial Court to resolve the dispute between the parties on the basis of evidence recorded by him. For the present, as the petitioners failed to bring on record any material to show that they were deprived of some irrigation water available to them before the introduction of new Warabandi, the two Courts below rightly declined to issue temporary, injunction in their favour. This revision application is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.