Pakistan Case Law← Search
2002 C.L.R. 664

SHAH MUHAMMAD and others vs DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, ISLAM

Citation2002 C.L.R. 664
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 7263 of 2000
Date2001-03-09
Judge(s)Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui
ResultPetition allowed

ORDER

NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J. -- The instant Constitution petition calls in question the order dated 4.3.2000 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Malsi Canal Circle, Multan (respondent No. 2) whereby he enhanced one time Tawan to three times and imposed the same on the petitioners, "due to tempering of out-let RD-17272-L Kotli Minor for illegal irrigation".

2. The Divisional Canal Officer, Islam Headworks Division at Head Pallah, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur imposed one time special charges on the petitioners vide his order dated 21.6.1999 for unauthorized use of Water in order to irrigate their lands. As per Section 35(3) of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the DCO, may, within 30 days of the passing of such order, appeal to the SCO when special charges levied by the DCO are upto three times occupiers -rate. dmittedly no appeal was filed either by the petitioner or the Canal Department, against thesaid order of DCO. It could not be refused by the representative of the respondents that the SCO was not competent to enhance the penalty, suo motu. However it is submitted by him that one Bashir Ahmed Lumbardar lodged a complaint with the SCO, who treating the same as an appeal against order of _DCO dated 21.6.1999, enhanced penalty from one time to three times. This could hardly furnish a valid justification for passing the impugned order by the SCO (respondent No. 2). It is also not denied that no further appeal was available against the impugned order of the SCO. Even there is no reason available in impugned order, as to for what consideration, the penalty was enhanced from one time to three times.

3. In view of the above, order passed by the SCO (respondent No. 2) dated 4.3.2000 cannot be lawfully maintained and the same is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, by allowing this petition, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.

4. Petitioners are hereby directed to deposit the amount of penalty as directed by the DCO (respondent No. 1) dated 21.6.1999, within one week from today, failing which law shall take its on course.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search