Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MIAN JINDWADA versus ABU BAKAR


Punjab Minor Canals Act 1905 Section 43 (2) (a) and (b) Canal and Water Course Difference Canal is defined under Section 3 (II) and Section 3 (xii) of the Punjab Minor Canals. The Act's distinction is not very clear, but water courses can usually be taken to mean a small drainage, which flows down the canal and in fact supplies water for irrigation to various farms.

P L D (Rev.) 1955 Punjab 59

Before Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner

Mian JINDWADA and others‑Petitioners

Versus

ABU BAKAR and others‑Respondents

Revision Side No. 49 of 1953‑54, decided on 29th July, 1955, District D. G. Khan.

Punjab Minor Canals Act (III of 1905)-------

----

S. 43 (2) (a) and (b)‑‑Canal and water‑course‑Difference.

The word "canal" has been defined under section 3 (ii) and the word "water‑course" under section 3 (xii) of the Punjab Minor Canals Act. The distinction is not very clear but in ordinary parlance a water‑course may be taken to mean the smaller channels, which take off from a canal and actually supply water for irrigation to the various fields.

Held, that the common hill torrent‑‑Wah Mian Sahib --In District D. G. Khan is a canal and the dispute in respect of waters of this canal should be decided by the Collector as a Revenue Court.

Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Petitioners.

M. Anwar, for Respondents.

ORDER

NASIR AHMAD, F. C.

'The petitioner Mian Jind Wadda etc., seem to have approached the Collector D. G. Khan that the irrigation of lands of the parties situated in Basti Pariah Ali and Raqba Aqil Muhammad from the common hill torrent Wah Mian Sahib should be carried out on the system of Serova piana both in respect of abe ziah (i.e., perennial supply) and lorra pani (i.e., rain water supply). The application was rejected and the petitioners were directed to follow the system of wara bandi which it peas stated had been in force for a very long time. Their appeal to the Commissioner was also rejected.

In this revision petition it is urged that the procedure followed by the Collector is not in accordance with the provisions of the Minor Canals Act. The dispute relates to the mutual rights of owners in the use of the waters of a canal and should, therefore, have been decided as a Revenue Court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act as laid down in section 43 (a) of the Minor Canals Act. The contention of the other side is, that the dispute relates to a water‑course and not a canal and as such falls under section 43 (2) (b) of the Act. The word canal has been defined under section 3 (ii) of the Act as follows :‑

"Canal means any canal, natural or artificial channel or line of natural drainage or any reservoir, dam or embank ment constructed, maintained or controlled for the supply or storage of water or the protection of land from, flood or sand, and includes any water‑course or subsidiary works as defined in this section".

The significant words are that canal includes a water‑course though water‑course is defined later on and differently in sub section (xii). The distinction is not very clear but in ordinary parlance a watercourse may be taken to mean the smaller channels, which take off from a canal and actually supply water for irrigation to the various fields. These smaller channels are maintained by the irrigators themselves. In this particular case it is the rights from the canal Wah Mian Sahib which are in dispute and the dispute does not relate to the smaller water‑course. The Collector should, therefore have dealt with the case as a Revenue Court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and not as an application. only.

The parties themselves have agreed that this case along with the other connected Case No. 98 of 1953‑54 may be remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision on the merits. I would accordingly accept this petition and direct that the Collector should proceed with the matter as held by me above and come to a fresh decision on merits. The parties should be informed.

A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
law firms from Faisalabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.