SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal had been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and restraining the defendants from excluding their Chak from the scheme Osrabandi of outlet No. 10 of the Canal in dispute. The trial Court found that the plots of the plaintiff were not included in the Scheme of the outlet No. 10 concerned and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court gave a finding that the subsequent papers filed by the State were not reliable and the Court below was of the opinion that the plots of the plaintiffs were being irrigated from the outlet No. 10. It also gave a finding that the plaintiff had irrigated his plot for four Fasals from Rabi 1971 and onwards.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Clause 4 of the Para 309 of the Manual of Orders of the Irrigation Department. It is quoted in the order of the lower Appellate Court. It is as follows:

(3.) The Court below in spite of the rule, relied upon Clause (f) of Section 32 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act which provides that "no right can be acquired by user." Section 32 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act applies to contracts which are to be entered into between the State and the cultivator and the contracts were to be framed in accordance with that Section. The Court below, however, though it noted yet completely ignored Section 31 of the Act which reads as under: