P L D 1965 W (PLP)
GHALOO KHAN AND OTHEES‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHALOO KHAN AND OTHEES‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Irrigation Act (VII of 1879) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Irrigation Act (VII of 1879) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (GHALOO KHAN AND OTHEES‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Rasul Shah for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 67 & 77‑Revenue Commissioner has only powers of supervision and control over proceedings before Collector‑‑‑Commissioner need not pass "judicial" order‑Revision before Additional Commissioner not competent, nor second Revision before Board--Sind Irrigation Act (VII of 1879) a special Act; Sind Revenue Code not, applicable‑[Case of Fine for tampering with module of distributory].
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑ (1) Ghaloo Khan and others v. State (Revision No. 1833 of 1962‑63). (2) Shah Bakhsh and others v. The State (Revision No. 66 of 1962‑63). These two revisions have been filed against an order dated the 22nd of December 1960, passed by Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby the revisions preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were penalized for tampering with a module on WC. 2 R‑ex‑Chanda distributory and were fined. They went in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar who dismissed the appeal. They then filed revisions before the Additional Commissioner but they were also rejected. Hence these second revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for Ghaloo Khan, Wadi Khan and Wazir Khan petitioners. There is no law under which second revisions can be entertained. As a matter of fact, revision could not be preferred before the Additional Commissioner. The relevant provisions are contained in section 67 of the Sind Irrigation Act (VII of 1879). This section provides for an appeal to the Collector from the orders passed by the Canal Officer. It is added that the proceedings, before the Collector under this Act, shall be subject to supervision and control of the Revenue Commissioner. It is, therefore, clear that no revision would lie, to the Additional Commissioner but he could scrutinize the order passed by the Collector in his executive, supervisory, or controlling authority vested in him by section
77. It follows, therefore, that, in such cases, judicial order need not be passed. There is, therefore, no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Commissioner should have passed judicial order. At any rate, there is no provision for second revisions to the Board of Revenue under this Act: The learned counsel for the petitioners wishes me to take action under the Sind Revenue Code. This is not possible either because the Sind Irrigation Act is a Special Act and there is no provision therein which would justify the application of the provision of the Sind Revenue Code. In these circumstances, the second revisions are not competent and both of them are dismissed hereby. A. H. Petitions dismissed.