Din (c.r
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Din (c.r as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,009
- Pages: 12
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.R. No.____________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Opening Sheet.
2
Urgent Form
3
Revision Petition
4
Affidavit
5
Copy of record of rights.
6
Copy of applications.
7
Copy of order.
E
8
Copy of order dated 10.12.96.
F
9 10
Copy of suit, written statement, G, H, I, J, K application, order dated 5.7.01, memo &L of appeal & order dated 21.5.02. Copy of form A. M
11
Copy of record of rights.
12 13 14 15 16
Dispensation application. Affidavit. Stay application. Affidavit. Power of attorney.
A B, C & D
N
PETITIONER, Dated: __________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.R. No.____________/2002
1.
Shahabuddin S/o Fazil
2.
Muhammad Qabil S/o Abdullah
3.
Gul Sher S/o Muhammad Ramzan
4.
Haji Muhammad S/o Allah Ditta
5.
Muhammad Aslam S/o Abdur Rehman
6.
Muhammad Nasir S/o Gul Muhammad
7.
Ahmad Bakhsh S/o Sher Muhammad
8.
Bashir Ahmad
9.
Shabbir Ahmad
sons of Manzoor Mai,
10.
Nazir Ahmad
Wagan by caste
11.
Munir Ahmad
12.
Muhammad Amir
13.
Manzoor Mai
14.
Kundan Mai
15.
Zaibo Mai
16.
Mst. Khan Bibi---widow of
17.
Manzoor Ahmad S/o Bahawal Din
18.
Ghulam Muhammad
sons of Fazal,
19.
Rehmat Ali
caste Wagan
20.
Saeed Ahmad S/o Haji Muhammad, caste Wagan
21.
Shamir Khan
sons of Mahlay Khan,
22.
Taj Muhammad
caste Mayo
23.
Muhammad Usman
sons of Munshi Khan,
24.
Muhamamd Siddique
caste Baloch
25.
Muhammad Khan S/o Ghulam Rasool
daughters
of Ghazi Muhammad caste Wagan
26.
Manzoor Hussain S/o Wilayat Hussain Shah, caste Syed. All residents of village Kotla Murad Ali, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran. ……PETITIONERS
VERSUS 1.
Province of Punjab, through District Officer (Rev.) Lodhran.
2.
Superintending Canal Officer, Mailsi Canal Circle, Multan.
3.
Divisional Canal Officer, Lodhran Canal Division, Multan.
4.
Haji Dur Muhammad
sons of
5.
Khan Muhammad
Malik Waddan
6.
Muhammad Nawaz S/o Ghulam Fareed, caste Wagan
7.
Sher Muhammad
8.
Nizamuddin
9.
Abdul Majeed
10.
Muhammad Aslam
11.
Bashir Ahmad
12.
Nazir Ahmad
13.
Parveen Akhtar—daughter of
14.
Mst. Ladli—widow of
sons of
Khaila Khan, caste Mayo
All residents of village Aain Wahan, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran. …RESPONDENTS
REVISION PETITION U/s 115 C.P.C. CLAIM IN REVISION: To set aside the impugned order and
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the petitioners are irrigators of outlet No. 59309/L, Lac Bighali Distributory and owners of agricultural land in village
Ainwala, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran. (Copy of record of rights is Annex “A”). 3. That respondents No. 4 to 14 requested the Divisional Canal Officer, Lodhran that their land (4 + 12 + 16 = 32 acres) has not been provided with canal water, the same be included into the Chakbandi of outlet No. 59309/L (outlet of the petitioners) and canal water be supplied therefrom. (Copy of applications are Annexes “B, C & D”). 4. That the Divisional Canal Officer after observing the required procedure and hearing the parties, vide order dated 9.10.94 rejected the application of the respondents. (Copy of order is Annex “E”). 5. That the respondents filed an objection petition before the S.C.O. Mailsi Canal Circle, Multan, who accepted the objection and set aside the decision of the D.C.O. vide his order dated 10.12.96. (Copy of order dated 10.12.96 is Annex “F”). 6. That the petitioners assailed the order of S.C.O. through a suit for declaration, along-with the suit an application for grant of temporary injunction was also submitted. The learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 5.7.2001. The petitioners lodged an appeal against the said order of the trial court, which met the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2002, passed by Additional District Judge, Lodhran, hence, this revision petition. (Copy of suit, written statement, application for temporary injunction, order of trial court dated 5.7.2001, memo of appeal and order o appeal court dated 21.2.2002 are Annexes “G, H, I, J, K & L”). 7. That the orders of the learned trial court dated 5.7.2001and court of appeal dated 21.5.2002 are illegal, void, against law and facts; and liable to be set aside inter inter-alia on the following amongst other: GROUNDS
i)
That both the learned courts below have wrongly held that the impugned orders of the S.C.O. will have no adverse effect on the irrigation of the petitioners, but they have overlooked the fact that size of the outlet will not be increased and the respondents will receive canal water from the share of the petitioners as is also evident from the A form wherein remarks column the word “No change” has been inserted. The available canal water in the outlet is 3.10 cusec, which is the sanctioned discharge for 564 acres, whereas by inclusion of the area of the petitioners the total area of the outlet will be 602 acres and its authorized discharge will be 3.31 cusecs. The difference is 0.21 cusecs. The formula for calculation of discharge for the are is as under: water allowance on this system for 1000 acres is 5.5 cusecs. Present =
564 x 5.5 1000
=
3.10 cusecs
Proposed = 564 + 38 = 602 x 5.5 = 3.31 cusecs 1000 Difference: 0.21 cusecs. (Copy of form A is Annex “M”). ii)
That both the learned courts below have wrongly held that the stay order if granted amounts to interference into the functions of the Department and is against the public interest. Factually, the orders passed by the Canal authorities are judicial orders as provided in section 69 of the Canal & Drainage Act. The Civil Courts are required to see that requirements of law on the subject have fully been complied with. In the instant cases the S.C.O. has passed a non-speaking order. No reasons whatsoever has been given to justify the inclusion of the area of the respondents into the Chakbandi of the outlet of the petitioners. He has also
violated the rule 13.4 of the Canal Revenue Manual as well as rule of expediency. iii)
That the learned appellate court below has also wrongly held that the impugned order of the S.C.O. was passed after hearing the parties and a number of present petitioners/appellants were present before the S.C.O. whereas only 3 petitioners were present, the remaining petitioners were neither served with a notice nor heard before passing the impugned order of S.C.O. dated 10.2.96. The law requires that all the interested persons should be informed through notice to enable them to bring their grievances before the Canal authorities, but this was not done. The Canal authorities have violated the provision of section 20 and rule 79 A to I of the Canal & Drainage Act, therefore, the impugned order of the S.C.O. is without any substance.
IV)
That the learned courts below have also failed to observe, that the S.C.O. has acted suomoto while allowing inclusion of land of the respondents on the outlet of the petitioners as no written application has been filed from all the respondents. Furthermore he has given water to riverian area without any entitlement and against the rules. (Copy of record of rights is Annex “N”).
v)
That from the above situation, it is evident that the order of the S.C.O. is non-speaking, defective, suffer from legal infirmity and can in no way be acted upon as such the petitioners have a good prima facie case in their favour.
vi)
That the impugned orders of the Canal authorities have not been implemented at site, as such balance of convenience tilts in favour of the petitioners.
vii)
That both the learned courts below while giving their findings about irreparable loss, did not notice that due to inclusion of more area, the timings of water of the petitioners will be reduced without any change in the quantum of water. It will be the petitioners, who will face irreparable loss and not the respondents.
viii)
That the petitioners fulfill all the requirements, i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction in their favour. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned orders of the courts below may kindly be set aside and application for grant of temporary injunction may very graciously be allowed in the interest of justice. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Petitioners,
Dated: ________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan. CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, this is the first revision petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.R. No.____________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Shahabuddin S/o Fazil, caste Wagan, R/o village Kotla Murad Ali, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled revision petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002
Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
Application U/s-151 read with Order 41, R-5 C.P.C.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the contents of Civil Revision may please be treated as part & parcel of this application.
2.
That the applicant will face irreparable loss if the interim relief is not granted.
3.
That the balance of convenience and balance of justice is in favour of applicant.
4.
That the applicant has a prima facie arguable case in his favour.
5.
That the case is still on the initial stages and right of any party shall not be prejudiced.
In view of the above humble submissions, it is prayed that the operation of the impugned order of the
S.C.O. dated 10.12.1996 may very graciously be suspended till the final disposal of the case. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Applicants, Dated: ________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
STAY APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT of: Shahabuddin S/o Fazil, caste Wagan, R/o village Kotla Murad Ali, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main petition. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “
” are not readily
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
C.R. No.____________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Opening Sheet.
2
Urgent Form
3
Revision Petition
4
Affidavit
5
Copy of record of rights.
6
Copy of applications.
7
Copy of order.
E
8
Copy of order dated 10.12.96.
F
9 10
Copy of suit, written statement, G, H, I, J, K application, order dated 5.7.01, memo &L of appeal & order dated 21.5.02. Copy of form A. M
11
Copy of record of rights.
12 13 14 15 16
Dispensation application. Affidavit. Stay application. Affidavit. Power of attorney.
A B, C & D
N
PETITIONER, Dated: __________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.R. No.____________/2002
1.
Shahabuddin S/o Fazil
2.
Muhammad Qabil S/o Abdullah
3.
Gul Sher S/o Muhammad Ramzan
4.
Haji Muhammad S/o Allah Ditta
5.
Muhammad Aslam S/o Abdur Rehman
6.
Muhammad Nasir S/o Gul Muhammad
7.
Ahmad Bakhsh S/o Sher Muhammad
8.
Bashir Ahmad
9.
Shabbir Ahmad
sons of Manzoor Mai,
10.
Nazir Ahmad
Wagan by caste
11.
Munir Ahmad
12.
Muhammad Amir
13.
Manzoor Mai
14.
Kundan Mai
15.
Zaibo Mai
16.
Mst. Khan Bibi---widow of
17.
Manzoor Ahmad S/o Bahawal Din
18.
Ghulam Muhammad
sons of Fazal,
19.
Rehmat Ali
caste Wagan
20.
Saeed Ahmad S/o Haji Muhammad, caste Wagan
21.
Shamir Khan
sons of Mahlay Khan,
22.
Taj Muhammad
caste Mayo
23.
Muhammad Usman
sons of Munshi Khan,
24.
Muhamamd Siddique
caste Baloch
25.
Muhammad Khan S/o Ghulam Rasool
daughters
of Ghazi Muhammad caste Wagan
26.
Manzoor Hussain S/o Wilayat Hussain Shah, caste Syed. All residents of village Kotla Murad Ali, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran. ……PETITIONERS
VERSUS 1.
Province of Punjab, through District Officer (Rev.) Lodhran.
2.
Superintending Canal Officer, Mailsi Canal Circle, Multan.
3.
Divisional Canal Officer, Lodhran Canal Division, Multan.
4.
Haji Dur Muhammad
sons of
5.
Khan Muhammad
Malik Waddan
6.
Muhammad Nawaz S/o Ghulam Fareed, caste Wagan
7.
Sher Muhammad
8.
Nizamuddin
9.
Abdul Majeed
10.
Muhammad Aslam
11.
Bashir Ahmad
12.
Nazir Ahmad
13.
Parveen Akhtar—daughter of
14.
Mst. Ladli—widow of
sons of
Khaila Khan, caste Mayo
All residents of village Aain Wahan, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran. …RESPONDENTS
REVISION PETITION U/s 115 C.P.C. CLAIM IN REVISION: To set aside the impugned order and
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the petitioners are irrigators of outlet No. 59309/L, Lac Bighali Distributory and owners of agricultural land in village
Ainwala, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran. (Copy of record of rights is Annex “A”). 3. That respondents No. 4 to 14 requested the Divisional Canal Officer, Lodhran that their land (4 + 12 + 16 = 32 acres) has not been provided with canal water, the same be included into the Chakbandi of outlet No. 59309/L (outlet of the petitioners) and canal water be supplied therefrom. (Copy of applications are Annexes “B, C & D”). 4. That the Divisional Canal Officer after observing the required procedure and hearing the parties, vide order dated 9.10.94 rejected the application of the respondents. (Copy of order is Annex “E”). 5. That the respondents filed an objection petition before the S.C.O. Mailsi Canal Circle, Multan, who accepted the objection and set aside the decision of the D.C.O. vide his order dated 10.12.96. (Copy of order dated 10.12.96 is Annex “F”). 6. That the petitioners assailed the order of S.C.O. through a suit for declaration, along-with the suit an application for grant of temporary injunction was also submitted. The learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 5.7.2001. The petitioners lodged an appeal against the said order of the trial court, which met the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2002, passed by Additional District Judge, Lodhran, hence, this revision petition. (Copy of suit, written statement, application for temporary injunction, order of trial court dated 5.7.2001, memo of appeal and order o appeal court dated 21.2.2002 are Annexes “G, H, I, J, K & L”). 7. That the orders of the learned trial court dated 5.7.2001and court of appeal dated 21.5.2002 are illegal, void, against law and facts; and liable to be set aside inter inter-alia on the following amongst other: GROUNDS
i)
That both the learned courts below have wrongly held that the impugned orders of the S.C.O. will have no adverse effect on the irrigation of the petitioners, but they have overlooked the fact that size of the outlet will not be increased and the respondents will receive canal water from the share of the petitioners as is also evident from the A form wherein remarks column the word “No change” has been inserted. The available canal water in the outlet is 3.10 cusec, which is the sanctioned discharge for 564 acres, whereas by inclusion of the area of the petitioners the total area of the outlet will be 602 acres and its authorized discharge will be 3.31 cusecs. The difference is 0.21 cusecs. The formula for calculation of discharge for the are is as under: water allowance on this system for 1000 acres is 5.5 cusecs. Present =
564 x 5.5 1000
=
3.10 cusecs
Proposed = 564 + 38 = 602 x 5.5 = 3.31 cusecs 1000 Difference: 0.21 cusecs. (Copy of form A is Annex “M”). ii)
That both the learned courts below have wrongly held that the stay order if granted amounts to interference into the functions of the Department and is against the public interest. Factually, the orders passed by the Canal authorities are judicial orders as provided in section 69 of the Canal & Drainage Act. The Civil Courts are required to see that requirements of law on the subject have fully been complied with. In the instant cases the S.C.O. has passed a non-speaking order. No reasons whatsoever has been given to justify the inclusion of the area of the respondents into the Chakbandi of the outlet of the petitioners. He has also
violated the rule 13.4 of the Canal Revenue Manual as well as rule of expediency. iii)
That the learned appellate court below has also wrongly held that the impugned order of the S.C.O. was passed after hearing the parties and a number of present petitioners/appellants were present before the S.C.O. whereas only 3 petitioners were present, the remaining petitioners were neither served with a notice nor heard before passing the impugned order of S.C.O. dated 10.2.96. The law requires that all the interested persons should be informed through notice to enable them to bring their grievances before the Canal authorities, but this was not done. The Canal authorities have violated the provision of section 20 and rule 79 A to I of the Canal & Drainage Act, therefore, the impugned order of the S.C.O. is without any substance.
IV)
That the learned courts below have also failed to observe, that the S.C.O. has acted suomoto while allowing inclusion of land of the respondents on the outlet of the petitioners as no written application has been filed from all the respondents. Furthermore he has given water to riverian area without any entitlement and against the rules. (Copy of record of rights is Annex “N”).
v)
That from the above situation, it is evident that the order of the S.C.O. is non-speaking, defective, suffer from legal infirmity and can in no way be acted upon as such the petitioners have a good prima facie case in their favour.
vi)
That the impugned orders of the Canal authorities have not been implemented at site, as such balance of convenience tilts in favour of the petitioners.
vii)
That both the learned courts below while giving their findings about irreparable loss, did not notice that due to inclusion of more area, the timings of water of the petitioners will be reduced without any change in the quantum of water. It will be the petitioners, who will face irreparable loss and not the respondents.
viii)
That the petitioners fulfill all the requirements, i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction in their favour. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned orders of the courts below may kindly be set aside and application for grant of temporary injunction may very graciously be allowed in the interest of justice. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Petitioners,
Dated: ________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan. CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, this is the first revision petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.R. No.____________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Shahabuddin S/o Fazil, caste Wagan, R/o village Kotla Murad Ali, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled revision petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002
Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
Application U/s-151 read with Order 41, R-5 C.P.C.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the contents of Civil Revision may please be treated as part & parcel of this application.
2.
That the applicant will face irreparable loss if the interim relief is not granted.
3.
That the balance of convenience and balance of justice is in favour of applicant.
4.
That the applicant has a prima facie arguable case in his favour.
5.
That the case is still on the initial stages and right of any party shall not be prejudiced.
In view of the above humble submissions, it is prayed that the operation of the impugned order of the
S.C.O. dated 10.12.1996 may very graciously be suspended till the final disposal of the case. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Applicants, Dated: ________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
STAY APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT of: Shahabuddin S/o Fazil, caste Wagan, R/o village Kotla Murad Ali, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Lodhran.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002 Shahabuddin etc.
Vs
Province of Punjab, etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main petition. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “
” are not readily
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
