Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HASSAN SHAH VS Respondent: NASIRUDDIN
P L D 1964 W
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 47
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
HASSAN SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners
Versus
NASIRUDDIN‑Respondent
Revision No. 895 of 1962‑63, decided on 25th October 1963, District Peshawar.
Punjab Minor Canals Act (III of 1905)------
-----S. 43 (2) (b)‑Order under section‑Final‑No revision lies.‑Review however can be filed.
ORDER
The respondent owns land on a water course which takes off from Sheikhwala Canal which is notified under the Minor Canals Act. He applied for warabandi in respect of his share in the water course. The Collector passed an order after consulting the
Irrigation Authorities and the learned Additional Commissioner has maintained this order. A revision petition has been preferred by the other shareholders against this order.
In my opinion the petition is not competent under the law.
The application made by the petitioner was treated as one under section 43 (2) (b) of the Minor Canals Act so that it was treated as a Revenue Officer's case. No objection was raised by the petitioners before the learned Additional Commissioner or even in the application filed before me about the procedure followed by the officers below so that a plea that the case should have been treated as a revenue suit has never been raised. It appears from the perusal of the orders that this dispute is about warabandi on a water course and in accordance with the provisions of section 43 (2) (b) of the Minor Canals Act the order of the Commissioner in appeal is final. The petition is thus not competent and stands dismissed. If the petitioners feel aggrieved with the decision of the Additional Commissioner, the proper course for them would be to ask for a review of the order and not come up in revision.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.