Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 31&of 1973, decided on 6th December 1974.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26th July 1973, in R. S. A. No. 74‑61/BWP).

-----S. 6S‑Settlement of differences‑No fresh difference between parties arising‑‑Previous order of Divisional Canal Officer final and dispute not to be reopened‑Except for period of crop sown or growing, Divisional Canal Officer can reopen and modify earlier arrangement as many times as difference arises subject to fulfilment of condition laid down in S. 68.

Muhammad Mahmood Bhatti. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th December 1974.

This petition for special leave to appeal is from judgment of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High court has upheld the decree passed in respondent's favour with the result that the order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 27th October 1958. cancelling Water Course A. M. C., with Nakka 35/5 for the village abadi has been declared as illegal and void in law.

Learned Single Judge in the High Court has held that no fresh difference between the parties having arisen, the previous order of the Divisional Canal officer dated 20th February 1957, had attained finality under 4 section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, and the dispute could not be reopened.

We see no justification for interfering with the finding of fact reached by the High Court. The possibility of differences arising is the future has been safeguarded by the learned Single Judge in these words :--

"I would also visualise the possibility of "differences" which might arise after a fight or a serious altercation on the questions of particular mode of use of water course Sometimes, chase differences, having their origin In petty squabbling, assume the form of serious conflicts and enmities. When such a difference is brought to the notice of the Divisional Canal Officer and if he, in order to satisfy the fighting factions, makes changes in the earlier arrangements, subject of course to fulfilment of conditions of section 69, the reopening of the earlier settled question, of course after the two specified crops would not be hit by the bar of finality. It is significant to note, as already indicated, that the recourse to civil Court is possible within only a prescribed limit of time, After that, if it is assumed that the Law left no remedy for differences to be settled, the whole object of section 68 would have been lost. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that except for the period of the crop sown or growing, if the conditions laid down in the first paragraph of section 68 are satisfied, the Divisional Canal Officer can reopen and modify earlier arrangements as many times as "difference arises".

There is no, therefore ,merit in this petition, it is therefore dismissed.

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.