Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2602 2013 SLD 2602 2013 YLR 1296
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 2558 of 2010, decided on 19th July, 2010
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J
Arshad Iqbal Bhullar for Petitioners. Rana Shahshad Khan, A.A.G. with Syed Raza Hussain Bukhari, Ziladar section Pakpattan, Canal Department

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

VS

MUHAMMAD ANWAR

Law:

Section:

Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)--- ----S. 68-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Suit of petitioner assailing legality of order of Canal Department for making watercourse on land of petitioner was decreed by Trial Court and same was affirmed by Appellate Court---Appellate Court in its order stated that the order shall not preclude the respondent from moving an application under S.68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 for restoration of watercourse---Contention of the petitioner was that the matter had been finally decided by the civil court and the same could not be re-opened under the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873---Validity---Matter fell under the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 which provided adequate relief in case of any dispute---Order of the Appellate Court was in accordance with law and did not infringe rights of the petitioner---No illegality having been pointed out in the impugned order, revision was dismissed. ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are owners in possession of land fully described in para 2 of the civil revision. Agricultural land of the petitioners as well as the respondents was being irrigated from Moga No.13788/TF Rajbah Soochan. Respondent No.1 tried to make an illegal watercourse from the land of the petitioners which was not sanctioned in the record of irrigation department from North to South while the sanctioned Khal which is in operation is from East to West. Later on, respondent No.1 due to political influence obtained an illegal order from respondent No.2 for making an extra watercourse from the land of the petitioners. 2. That the father of the petitioners challenged the order of respondent No.2 by filing a declaratory suit which was resisted by the other party. Learned trial Court after framing of issues and record of evidence, decreed the suit of the petitioners on 11-11-2009. 3. That respondent No.1-filed an appeal which was dismissed on 2-6-2010 by the learned Additional District Judge but the learned appellate court after dismissing the appeal of respondent No.1 added para 10 in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492