1998 PLP 233 (CLC)
REHMAT ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 233 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | REHMAT ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 233 (CLC)?
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 1998 PLP 233 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 233 (CLC) (REHMAT ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad A9hraf for Petitioner.
- Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3
- M.A. Zafar for Respondents Nos.4 and 5
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 68‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑‑Change of Nakka from one Killa of specific square to another Killa of same square owned by defendants on their application‑‑‑Plaintiff assailed such change with no success from Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In changing Nakka from one piece of land to other piece of land neither land of plaintiff nor anybody else was involved‑‑‑Plaintiff failed to point out that by change of Nakka he had suffered in any way‑‑‑Authorities were fully competent to make necessary changes in arrangements earlier made by them‑‑‑There being concurrent findings of fact, plaintiff had failed to make out case for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Munshi v. Ali Muhammad 1980 CLC 234 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 M.A. Zafar for Respondents Nos.4 and 5 Date of hearing: 24th April, 1996. The relevant facts for the decision of this revision petition are that respondents 4 and 5 moved an application before respondent No.2 for change of Nakka from Kila No. 15/16 of square No.42 to Kila No.5/6 of the same square. The application was accepted vide order dated 24‑12‑1990 and the order was confirmed by respondent No.3. The Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction whereby he challenged the order of respondents Nos.2 and
3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial Court recorded evidence and after hearing the arguments dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 9‑12‑1992 which was assailed through an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 4‑3‑1993. The petitioner has now filed this revision petition which came up for limine hearing and it was decided to hear the respondents at limine stage who have appeared and contested the revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was decided and closed matter, therefore, it could not be reopened by respondents Nos.2 and
3. It is added that the Courts below wrongly held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 argued that it is case of concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below with reference to evidence on record. There is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction. In this behalf the learned counsel has referred 1980 CLC 234 "Munshi v. Ali Muhammad". It is added that the respondents 2 and 3 have exercised jurisdiction vesting in them properly and legally, therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner and First Appelalte Court also dismissed the appeal. It is argued that the main issue was Issue No.4 and the same has been elaborately dealt with by the Courts.
4. The learned Addl.A.G. reiterated the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and added that the respondents 2 and 3 have exercised their jurisdiction in accordance with law.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and precedent case. The argument that the Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter and both the Courts have wrongly observed that the Civil Court cannot interfere is utterly misconceived. The two Courts have held that sanction of Nakka is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal authorities and since power has been exercised in accordance with law, therefore, Civil Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Canal authorities.
6. Now coming to the main argument that it was decided and closed matter, therefore it could not be re‑opened. It is interesting to note here that respondents 4 and 5 have applied for change of their Nakka from one piece of land to other piece of land and respondents 2 and 3 appreciating their difficulty, allowed their application. Neither the land of petitioner nor nobody else was involved. The learned counsel when confronted with this factual position argued that this way previous irrigating time of the petitioner is wanted but he failed to refer any document on record to support this assertion. The respondents 2 and 3 were fully competent to make necessary amendments in the present arrangements. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for respondents that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts and the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 has rightly referred the judgment in the case of Munshi v. Ali Muhammad (1980 CLC 234).
7. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in this revision I petition. The same is dismissed in limine. A.A/R.39/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision dismissed.