Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 14 of 1956, decided on 23rd January, 1957. District Bahawalnagar.

S. 33--‑Penalty‑Actual benefit received by irrigators from interference with outlet not known‑--Penalty reduced in revision.

Farzand Ali for Petitioner.

This is a case in which a novel device is reported to have been employed for increasing the petitioners' supply of water. A temporary outlet in the form of a pipe had been fixed for them and the opening of the outlet had been reduced to 8" diameter with the use of necessary materials. The equipment reducing the diameter from 12" to 8" was such that it was of a permanent character. The irrigators are supposed to have broken this equipment and devised a moveable socket which could be inserted in the 12" pipe or taken out of it at will. Such a socket was found in the outlet on 15‑9‑53 jointly by the Overseer and the Zilledar. The size of the outlet with the moveable socket was only 7 ".

It is clear that the outlet was not intended to run with this moveable socket in it. The real game must have been to remove this socket and let the water run through the 12" pipe without any obstruction. The socket would be inserted at odd times whenever there was a risk of the outlet being checked by the Irrigation people.

The irrigation carried out in Kharif 1953 on this outlet was 171'86 acres and the Divisional Canal Officer decided on 25‑3‑54 to impose a penalty equivalent to six times the crop rates.

The Deputy Commissioner heard an appeal in exercise of powers as Commissioner but dismissed it on 29‑11‑54.

In revision, the petitioners claim that there was no need to obtain extra water, because there were enough rains during the season. They claim that some enemy must have contrived these measures in order to do them damage. I am, however, of the view that the Divisional Canal Officer and the Commis sioner drew correct conclusions against the petitioners. No one would interfere with the Government outlet except the persons who were going to gain from it.

It is not known how much actual benefit was received by the petitioners from this interference with the outlet. The A Divisional Canal Officer has not worked out the area which should have normally received irrigation from an outlet with a discharge of 2'66 but the irrigated area on the spot was 171.86 acres. It is possible that the highest discharge of 4.3 cusecs was not used for a very long period.

In the above circumstances, I am inclined to reduce the penalty from six to four times the crop rates. I direct accord ingly.

K. M. A. 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.