JOGI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal.

(2.) The Divisional Canal Officer had approved a scheme under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, for taking water through Khasra Nos. 58/15/2 and 57/11. However, while implementing the scheme, the watercourse was proposed to be taken through the aforesaid two Khasra numbers besides others and suggested acquisition of the aforementioned two Khasra numbers alongwith the others. Jogi Ram, whose land was sought to be acquired filed the present suit to challenge the order of the Canal Authorities being ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Both the Courts below found that the scheme had to be prepared by the Divisional Canal Officer after notice to the concerned parties and since the sanctioned scheme was only with regard to Khasra Nos. 58/15/2 and 57/11, to that extent the scheme was with jurisdiction and the remaining scheme was without jurisdiction and, therefore, decreed the suit to the extent the scheme was without jurisdiction. This is plaintiff's second appeal to claim decree in toto.

(3.) The Division Canal Officer has the exclusive jurisdiction to approve a scheme under the Act and the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. Since the scheme with regard to Khasra Nos. 58/15/2 and 57/11 was sanctioned after hearing the parties and the remaining Khasra numbers were added without hearing them, the decree granted by the Courts below is fully justified. What is urged by Shri S.K. Goyal, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant is that the scheme and the acquisition proceedings cannot be set aside in part and must be set aside as a whole and in support of the argument has placed reliance on Bhagwandas Nagindas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1915 AIR(Bom) 15. I do not find any merit in this contention. The decision cited is not applicable on the facts of the present case nor do I find that the sanctioned scheme is such which cannot be bifurcated. It is not disputed that the sanction scheme was to take water through Khasra Nos. 58/15/2 and 57/11 and it was later on while implementing the scheme that it was decided to take the water-course though some more Khasra numbers. Therefore, the two parts are clearly severable and to the extent that scheme is valid, the acquisition to that extent cannot be held to be either ultra vires or without jurisdiction. Hence, there is no scope for interference in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs.