Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 343 of 1976, decided on 12th March, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 11th February, 1976 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1983 of 1976).

---Art. 185(3)‑Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 20‑Non compliance of provision of S. 20‑Judgment of trial Court having been armed up to High Court in second appeal bad acquired finality‑Supreme‑ Court not called upon to examine its correctness Supreme Court having been satisfied that High Court has rightly interpreted judgment of lower Court‑Leave to appeal refused.

M. A. Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th March, 1983.

The matter relates to the irrigation outlet to Square No. 31 of the petitioner and his late brother. The outlet which is stated to have been No. 36314/11 had in 1915 been shifted to No., 32426/R. The "error" was rectified by the Canal authorities on 27‑10‑1961 but the same was declared a nullity in civil action brought by respondents 1 to 3, on the ground of non‑compliance of the provision of section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act. Fresh proceeding was undertaken by the Department and an order was made on 31‑1‑1964 for change of the outlet but again the order was struck down in a suit for declaration and injunction and the decree thus passed was maintained up to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 562 of 1970 decided on 24‑4‑1973. However, the Canal authorities once again commenced proceeding for shifting the outlet which led to the filing of an application by the said respondents under Order XXI, rule 32, C. P. C. for action against the Canal authorities. The Civil Court, upon the view that the Divisional Canal Officer had been restrained for all times to come from re‑opening the matter, ordered him to withdraw the proceeding. A revision against the Civil Court's order having been dismissed by the District Judge, recourse was taken by the petitioner to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. His contention there was that as the decree having been passed on account of non‑compliance of the provision of section 20 of the Act, there was no bar to the authorities proceeding in the matter afresh in accordance with the law and that the view taken that the Canal authorities had been barred for all times to‑come was erroneous, but the learned Single Judge by reference to the relevant judgment of the Civil Court (a copy of the decree had not been furnished) held, inter alia, that in view of the relief claimed in the suit, which had been decreed, the "injunc tion is final for all purposes and it does not allow the Canal authorities or the petitioner to re‑open the matter and make an effort to Bout the decree".

2 From the relevant judgment of the Civil Court, dated 2.1‑1970, it appears that an injunction had been sought for restraining the defendants "from taking water from water Channel No. 36314/11". Not only had this prayer been granted but the civil Court had gone on to observe :‑

"If the defendants were receiving water from Channel No. 36314 from the beginning of the canal system, that is, ever since half a century or more why this fact was not brought on record and why if it was a mistake on paper rectification was not made."

This judgment, as already noted, having been affirmed up to the High Court in second appeal, had acquired a finality. We are not, therefore, called upon in the present proceeding to examine its correctness. All we have to see is whether the High Court has rightly interpreted it and we are satisfied that it has. The present petition for leave to appeal has thus no force and is accordingly dismissed.

M. Z. K. 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.