Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 18 of 1955‑56, decided on 29th February 1956, District Dera Ghazi Khan.

Ss. 10 and 43 Collector can proceed in summary manner in spite of S. 43.

It is open to the Collector to take summary proceedings under section 10 of the Act in his executive capacity in spite of provisions of section 43 which provide a procedure of the nature of a suit in a case of dispute between two or more parties.

S. 15-- Order of Financial Commissioner‑Reviewed suo moto by Revenue Board in course of later revision proceedings.

There was a dispute, under the Punjab Minor Canals Act (III of 1905), between two parties, regarding distribution of water of a parent stream into its sub‑channels, and the Financial Commissioner appointed a spot "A" at which the main channel should bifurcate into its sub‑channels. Subse quently, due to changes in the bed of the stream, the Commissioner found it necessary to alter the point of bifurcation and shift it to a point "E". The party aggrieved by‑the alteration came up in revision to the Revenue Board.

Held that while it was correct that the order of the Financial Commissioner could not be altered without a review, the old position "A" could not be maintained owing to changes in the bed of the stream.

The Board, therefore, reviewed suo moto the order of the Financial Commissioner, and approving the new point "E" dismissed the revision petition.

Tasaddaq Hussain for Petitioner.

Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.

.‑This is a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan district, exercising under the Minor Canals Act the powers of Commissioner, by which the appeal of the petitioner i.e., Khuda Bakhsh was dismissed and the order of the Collector regarding the point of distribution of waters of Rodkaha for the irrigators from Khanwah and Hazuriwah‑two subsidiary channels, was maintained.

In order to understand the facts it would be necessary to give a brief history of the way that the sites of the two channels have fluctuated during the last thirty years or so. Previous to 1929 there was only one channel taking off from Rodkaha, the parent stream and the parties irrigated their lands from it in accordance with the principles of Sarova Paina. There was a change after 1929 when Hazuriwah, a new channel came into existence and distribution of waters between Hazuriwah and Khanwah took place at a point some distance from the off take from the main channel. Circum stances kept on changing and a dispute arose in 1948 when owing to changes in the bed of the main stream, the new channel Hazuriwah which had come into existence in 1929 began taking off from the main Rodkaha up‑stream of Khanwah. In 1952 the irrigators on Khanwah constructed a separate off‑take from the main channel; in addition they constructed a link from Hazuriwah, and thus took away a considerable portion of its water. This led to major dispute which finally came up before my learned predecessor, Saidullah Khan, F. C., who decided that the link should be discarded and the point of bifurcation should remain as in 1929 and the new one decided by the Commissioner should be given up. This old point of 1929 seems to have been found impracticable by the irrigators on Khanwah and they made a fresh applica tion for distribution of waters. As a result the Commissioner has now fixed another point E' for distribution of waters between the two channels. A petition has been preferred by the irrigators from Hazuriwah on the ground that in view of the decision of my learned predecessor the Collector or the Commissioner were not competent to fix another point for distribution of water and the original point of distribution at 'A' should be maintained.

The main argument that has been urged in support of the decision of the Collector which is maintained, by the Commissioner is that distribution of water at point 'A' is no longer practicable in view of the changes which have taken place since 1929 in the bed of the main Rodkaha. As already observed to begin with the water of the parties was joint but it was owing to changes in the main stream that Hazuriwah subsequently came into existence and later on took off from the main Rodkaha upstream of Khanwah. The contention of the appellants is that the proper procedure for the party aggrieved was to file a suit under section 43 of the Act and not proceed in the summary manner which has been followed. This contention is not correct as it is open to the Collector to take summary proceedings under section 10 of the Act in his executive capacity. The other contention that the matter had once been decided by my learned predecessor and point 'A' could not, therefore, be altered without a review of his order, however, seems to me to be correct. This point was before the Collector when he made his decision and he has mentioned it in his order but he observed that permission to review would take a long time and the case would not, therefore, be settled in time for the parties to irrigate their lands for the next harvest. In view of the peculiar circum stances of this case i.e., the difficulty in maintaining the distribution of water at point 'A' on account of the changes in the beds of the streams I would review the order of my learned predecessor and accept the new distribution of water at point 'E' which has now been decided by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner. Unfortunately the facts regarding changes in the beds of the stream were not brought before my learned predecessor and that is the most probable reason why the original point of distribution was maintained by him. As a result this petition, however, stands dismissed.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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