Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Revision Side No. 7 of 1955‑56, decided on 24th January 1957, District Bahawalpur.
S. 33---‑Appellate Court remitting Tawan imposed by Divisional Canal Officer on ground that irrigators had previously complained against officers of Irrigation Department and complaint against irrigators must be taken as result of grievance of Canal Officers ---No interference in revision.
Irfan‑ul‑Haq for Respondent.
The Divisional Canal Officer had imposed a penalty equivalent to six times the crop rates, the total amounting to Rs. 4,624‑8‑0. This was done by him on 12‑6‑53. The Deputy Commissioner heard an appeal from the irrigators in exercise of powers as Commissioner and he remitted the whole Tawan on 14‑3‑55. I have been moved in revision by the Executive Engineer.
It is alleged that the Zilledar and the Overseer had checked the outlet in this case on 31‑12‑52 and found that the flow of water had been increased by unauthorised means from .46 to .77 cusecs. This was done by increasing the Y' and tampering with the crest‑of the outlet.
It appears that the irrigators had previously complained against the Overseer and the Zilledar. The Deputy, Commissioner has expressed the view that the present complaint about the outlet must be taken as the result of the grievance of the said Zilledar and Overseer, resulting from the fact that they had been complained against by the irrigators.
The Deputy Commissioner has also pointed out a large number of factors showing that the record of the Irrigation Branch had not been prepared in a regular manner or on prompt dates. The petition for revision (though it has bean described as a petition of appeal) contains arguments in support of their assertion that they committed no irregularity. The so‑called irregularities in the preparation of the records are not of a very serious character and they have formed the opinion that these irregularities were not fatal to the Tawan case, put when it is admitted that these irrigators had complained against both the Zilledar and the Overseer one cannot escape the lurking suspicion that those two officials might have engineered a false Tawan case against the irrigators. This is an adequate ground for remitting the Tawan.
In the above circumstances, I consider that it will not be justified on my part to interfere in revision. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision.
K. M. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer