JAGAT SINGH Vs. NIDHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's second appeal against an appellate decree of the District Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing his suit, which had been decreed by the trial Sub -Judge. The facts that gave rise to the suit are the following:

(2.) UNDER Para. 9 Chap. 4 of Mustnind Judicial Hadayyat of the erstwhile Kapurthala. State a revenue officer was authorised to order compulsory exchange of land if in his opinion. such exchange was likely to consolidate the holdings of a proprietor so as to enable him; to sink a new well. To explain the intention of the legislation an illustration is added .to this para, which says that in case a proprietor has got a plot of five Ghamons of land at one place and another plot 5 Ghamons at some distance, a compulsory exchange of the latter plot with an equal area of land which belongs to a different person and adjoins the former plot, can be ordered provided the proprietor undertakes to construct a well to irrigate the consolidated holding of ten Ghamons. Clause (5) of this Para amongst other things also provides that the well should be completed within one year of the order of compulsory exchange.

(3.) AS already observed the special law authorised the revenue officers to make an order of compulsory exchange only if the consolidation could enable a proprietor to sink a new well in his land. The law was not meant to provide a proprietor with more land to be irrigated by a well which was already in existence. This is exactly what the Tehsildar did in the present case. The order itself makes it clear, and the fact is not disputed, that the exchange was ordered to add to the land of the Defendant and for the irrigation of consolidated holding by an already existing well. It is a grave thing to deprive an owner, without his consent, of the enjoyment of his property and to force him to accept in its place another not of his own choice. It could only be allowed if the authority doing so had remained within its jurisdiction and strictly complied with the law creating that jurisdiction. The wrong use or misuse of the powers for the advantage of a particular individual and to the detriment to others cannot be permitted and gives cause of action to the persons wronged to approach the civil Courts. The learned Counsel for the respondent has frankly conceded that the Defendant did not sink any new well nor did he intend doing so, and that he only wanted to get more land because the one that he already had at the well fell short of the area which could be conveniently irrigated by that well. It is also significant that a similar and prior application by the defendants had already been rejected by the Tehsildar on 7 -8 -1988 on the ground that the applicants were not sinking a new well for which the compulsory exchange could be ordered. No notice of this previous order of the same authority was taken by the Tehsildar while making the order in question.