Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 15 of 1955‑56, decided on 23rd January, 1957. District Bahawalnagar.

S. 33--‑Penalty imposed on irrigators‑Responsibility for affecting cut on particular individuals not possible to be fixed though cut was deliberate‑Penalty reduced.

Fazal Elahi for Petitioner.

In this case, the Divisional Canal Officer came to the con clusion that the distributary No. 3‑R was cut on the night between the 16th and 17th October, 1951, and the unauthorised benefit was obtained by the landowners of the estate of Chak Pakka. He, therefore, imposed on them a Tawan of Rs. 5,825‑10 equivalent to six times the crop rates, vide his order dated 4‑2‑54. The petitioners state that they appealed to the Deputy Commissioner exercising powers as Commissioner and that he dismissed their appeal on 26‑8‑54. They have, however, failed to obtain a copy of the appellate judgment. The Irrigation records also do not contain a copy of the Commissioner's order. In fact, their file contains reports to the effect that no appeal was lodged with the Commissioner according to their in formation.

In the above circumstances, it is 'not possible to judge whether an appeal was in fact lodged or not. But if the appeal was rejected as admitted by the petitioners, I need not refer to the Commissioner's judgment at all.

There is no doubt that the Police did not succeed in finding the culprits with the result that no challan was actually sub mitted to a criminal Court. This, however, does not mean that there was no cut in the bank of the canal. The Divisional Canal Officer has stated in his judgment that he knew it for a fact that the bank of the distributary in question was sufficiently strong to resist the flow of 300 cusecs which was then being run in it for purposes of filling the ponds. There was no water supply available at the time for irrigators. I am, therefore, willing to accept the conclusion that there was a deliberate cut.

The responsibility for effecting the cut cannot be placed on particular individuals. The petitioners have been stating that' the cut must have been made by the landowners of another village nearly named Dadu Mumunka. The latter landowners denied all responsibility and insinuated that this was the work of the landowners of Chak Pakka.

The above considerations merely indicate that the Tawan on the petitioners need not be the maximum one. It does not indicate that they should not be penalised at all.

Altogether, I think the ends of justice would be met properly if I reduced the penalty to one‑half. I, therefore, direct accordingly.

Petition partly 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.