1987 PLP 769 (SCMR)
AHMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑petitioners Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 769 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑petitioners Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 769 (SCMR)?
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 1987 PLP 769 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 769 (SCMR) (AHMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑petitioners Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.Abdus Salam, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chawdhry, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners.
- M. Afzal Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 20‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sanction for supply of additional canal water‑‑Challenged by petitioners‑co‑sharers of water from same outlet who apprehended decrease in their share‑ Application for interim injunction dismissed and order upheld up to High Court‑‑Plea that no notice was served upon petitioners before sanctioning additional water to respondents, repelled‑‑Since 5$ extra supply was always provided for on every outlet, no notice to co‑sharers in circumstances was necessary‑‑Authorities having assured that supply would be increased, petitioners' apprehension of irreparable loss was unfounded‑‑With observation that pending disposal of suit quantity of water supply to petitioners should not be allowed to decrease due to extra supply to respondents, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M.Abdus Salam, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chawdhry, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners. M. Afzal Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1980. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were sanctioned additional canal water for their garden by the Irrigation Department. The petitioners who are co‑sharers of the water from the same out‑let felt aggrieved as they assumed that any increase in the canal water sanctioned to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 would automatically diminish their share of water. They, therefore, challenged the validity of the aforementioned sanction of the Canal Authorities through a civil suit. Alongwith it they also filed an application for an interim injunction. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 14‑6‑1980. The petitioners filed an appeal against it before the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who dismissed the same on 2‑7‑1980. The petitioners then filed a civil revision before the High Court but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.
2. The main contention of the petitioners' counsel was that the petitioners had not been served with any notice under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873, before sanctioning additional water to the respondents Nos. 3 and
4. This contention overlooks that an extra supply of 5$ is always provided for on every outlet and if extra water is supplied to any one from that in such a case no notice needs be given to the co‑sharers. Moreover, in the present case the Department made a statement before the learned Civil Judge that the supply of the capacity of the out‑let shall be increased to the extent of 1.3 cusics. Consequently, the petitioners' apprehension that their supply of water shall be diminished whereby they shall suffer irreparable loss appears to be unfounded.
3. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with the observation that in view of the assurance given by them the Canal authorities shall ensure that during the pendency of the civil suit Warabandi is not so altered as to diminish the quantity of wafer supplied to the petitioners as a result of the extra supply of water supplied to respondents 3 and
4. M.I. /A‑17/S Petition dismissed.