Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 344 2010 SLD 344 2010 CLC 68
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.1066 of 1998, decision dated: 27-05-2009
RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and 9 otherss

VS

DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, LODHRAN CANAL DIVISION, MULTAN and 12 others

Law: Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Section: 20,2

Law: Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Section: 20,2

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)-------S. 20---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate remedy of civil suit---Scope---Principle of "condemned unheard"-Applicability---On the application of respondents, Divisional Canal Officer, changed Moga of water course for irrigating lands of respondents, which order was maintained by appellate authority---Contention of petitioners was that authorities had passed orders in their absence and no opportunity of hearing was given to them---Validity---Any order arrived at without associating parties had no room in domain of law---Any order passed in violation of principle of natural justice could not have the legal effect---Order passed by appellate authority was merely affixing rubber stamp on the orders passed by Divisional Canal Officer and the same could not be termed as legal determination of appeal---Filing of civil suit might not be efficacious and speedy remedy as controversy involved could be resolved without entering into disputed question of facts raised by parties---Appellate authority acted in unfair and arbitrary manner and without going into details of factual controversy matter could not be resolved by exercising power under Art.199 of the Constitution---Order passed by appellate authority was final in nature and it could be assailed in a Constitutional jurisdiction---In the first order, Divisional Canal Officer concluded that contention of respondents were frivolous whereas in the second order he accepted contention of respondents without passing detailed reasoning---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by appellate authority and remanded the appeal for decision afresh---Petition was allowed accordingly. Sultan Ahmad v. Superintending Engineer, Bahawalnagar 1988 MLD 1460; Muhammad Idress and others v. Superintending Engineer and another 1996 CLC 1746; Muhammad Mubeen v. DCO 2007 CLC 1168; Bashir Ahmed v. Sardar Muhammad 1984 CLC 2158; Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sadiq and others 1971 SCMR 653; Mrs. Anisa v. PIAC and others 1994 SCMR 232; Messrs Wak Orient Power and Light Ltd. through Chief Secretary v. Government of Punjab,…
🔒
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