JAWALA RAM versus STATE OF PEPSU

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 27-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
503 
JAWALA RAM 
v. 
STATE OF PEPSU 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOo,K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Canal Ch•rges-Use cf. water, if "offence"-Levy of special 
charges, if amounts to "penalty"-Northern India Canal and Drain-
age Act, r873 (VII of r873). s. JI-Pepsu Sirhind Canal and Wes-
tern J amuna Canal Rules (Enforcement and Validation) Act (No. IV 
of r954), ss. 3, 4-Sirhind Canal Rules, rr. 32, 33. 
Certain persons were prosecuted but acquitted of a charge 
of having damaged a canal. Thereafter the canal officers levied 
special canal charges on the appellants on the basis of the con-
clusion that the villagers were responsible for a cut in the 
canal. The High Court dismissed the appellants' petition under 
Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the 
case was covered by the case of Mukundi Ram v. The Executive 
Engineer, decided by the High Court (LPA/FAO No. 58 of 1954). 
On appeal by special leave the appellants contended that ss. 3, 
and 4 of the Pepsu Sirhind Canal and Western Jamuna Canal 
Rules (Enforcement and \'alidation) Act (No. IV of 1954) are 
unconstitutional being in contravention of Art. 20(1) of the Con-
stitution inasmuch as they have been subjected to a penalty 
greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law 
in force at the time of the commission .of the offence. 
Held, that the use of water by the appellants was not an 
"offence" and the levy of special rates under Rules 32 and 33 
of the Sirhind Canal Rules read withs. 31 of the Northern India 
Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, for such use was not the imposi-
tion of a "penalty" for an offence as contemplated under Art. 
20(1) of the Constitution. 
Maqbool Hussain's case, [1953] S.C.R. 730, referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 43 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated April 11, 1956, of the former PEPSU 
High Court in Civil Misc. Case No. 173 of 1955. 
Naunit Lal, for the appellants. 
S. M. Sikhri, Advocate-General, Punjab, Gopal Singh 
and D. Gupta, for the respondents. 
I96I 
April a7 
]awala Ram 
v. 
State of Pepsu 
Das GHpla J. 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
1961. 
April 27. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAs GUPTA, J.-The 51 appellants all of whom 
belong to village Simla, Tehsil, Narwana, filed in the 
Pepsu High Court at Patiala a petition under Art. 226 
and Art. 227 of the Constitution for relief against an 
order made by the Divisional Canal Commissioner, 
Narwana, for payment of certain water rates and 
Tawan. It appears that on the night of September 1, 
1951, there was a cut on the left bank ofSirsa Branch 
Canal. Certain persons were prosecuted on a charge 
for having damaged the Canal but they were acquit-
ted. Thereafter, the Divisional Canal Officer, Nar-
wana, on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional 
Officer, Cana.I, Narwana made an order levying special 
charges against these appellants. On appeal the 
Divisional Canal Officer, N arwana, ordered in partial 
modification of the order made by the Sub-Divisional 
Officer, the levy of six times the crop rates on cultivat-
ed area and six times the charges on uncultivated 
area and single bulk rate on water store of village 
Simla. This levy was made on the basis of his conclu-
sion that the villagers of Simla were responsible for 
the cut and joined hands for the common good. 
The High Court dismissed the application by a 
short order stating that the points involved in this 
petition were fully covered by the decision of a Divi-
sion B{'nch of the same High Court in M ukandi Ram 
v. The Executive Engineer (LPA/FAO No 58of1954) 
and that the counsel for the petitioners had therefore 
nothing to say in support of the petition and did not 
press it. Against this order of dismissal the present 
petition has been filed by special leave obtained from 
this Court. 
Before mentioning the points raised by Mr. Naunit 
Lal in support of the appeal it would be convenient 
to refer to the provisions of law that require considera-
tion. 
Section 31 of the Northern India Canal and Drain-
age Act, 1873, which admittedly applies to the Sirsa. 
Branch Canal provides for the levy of water rates for 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
505 
supply of canal water taken in the absence of contract 
at the rates and subject to the condition prescribed 
by the rules to be made by the State Government in 
respect thereof.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.