Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

IRRIGATORS OF CHAK NO. 68/D. B. versus THE STATE


Canal and Sewerage Act 1873 Section 33 There is no evidence that irrigation was made through the transmission of fines by unauthorized means.
P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 11

Before H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan

IRRIGATORS OF CHAK No. 68/D. B.‑--Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Revision Side No. 5 of 1955‑56, decided on 28th June, 1957. District Bahawalpur. .

Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873),

S. 33--‑No proof that irrigation was done through unauthorised means--‑Penalty remitted.

Fazal Elahi for Petitioner.

ORDER

In this case, the file of the Irrigation Department is not traceable and has probably been lost.

The allegation is that the irrigators of this out let irrigated as much as 70 acres of land in one night by obtaining un authorised supplies in the minor by opening the gate at the head of the minor. The Divisional Canal Officer and the Deputy Commissioner have both omitted to say whether there were any outlets in the minor higher than the outlet in question or whether there was any illegal irrigation through such higher outlets also. Their orders are also silent on the point whether the unauthorised supplies drawn in the minor were also available to the lower outlets. I cannot imagine that the irrigators who are before me should force the water into the minor than close every higher outlet and place an obstruction in the minor just below their outlet so that all the water‑supplies drawn into the minor get used for irrigating their lands. 1n any case, if they did so, they can be penalised only if there is some direct evidence (explicit or implicit) on the point.

The only reason why the irrigators have been penalised in this case is that 70 acres of land were shown as recently irrigated. I am not in a position to judge in the absence of the Irrigation Department's file whether the allegation relating to the 70 irrigated acres is proved and, if so, whether this fact by itself justified a conclusion that the irrigation was done through un authorised means.

In the above circumstances, the case against the petitioners has become doubtful. I, therefore, accept this petition for revision and direct that the penalty imposed against them should be remitted.

K. M. A. Petition 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
tax advocates from Makran lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.