PATRANGA Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2002 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak. The District Judge has allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant holding that the Divisional Canal Officer, (DCO) WS Division, Rohtak, vide his order dated 30.7.1998 Ex. D-2 has violated the direction issued by the Superintending Canal Officer (SCO) in his order dated 26.6.1998 Ex. D-1. Further directions have been given to the Canal Authorities to decide the matter as per the decision of the S.C.O. dated 26.6.1998 Ex. D-1, which has directed the D.C.O. to frame a fresh scheme, that may be published for sanction of water course on the specified area i.e. either along line XY or along line MN because it goes on the side of the fields of defendant-respondents. In these circumstances, the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant was allowed and his suit has been decreed. However, the plaintiff-appellant has still preferred the present appeal. Facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff-appellant filed an application before the D.C.O. for providing link water course of let out RD 8600/L Jasrana Minor through the lands of one S/Sh. Rattan Singh, Balwan Singh, sons of Bakhtawar etc. The D.C.O. prepared a scheme under Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for brevity the Act) and sanctioned a water course under Section 18(2) of the Act on compensation through killa No. 118/2 of the land belonging to defendant-respondent Rattan Singh. Even acquisition order was passed on 11.12.1997 by the D.C.O. after notice to the owner of the land defendant-respondent Rattan Singh and compensation of Rs. 2929-05 was awarded, which was also deposited by the plaintiff-appellant. The order dated 11.12.1997 was challenged before the S.C.O., who vide order dated 26.6.1998 Ex. D-1 directed the D.C.O. that a fresh scheme may be published for sanction of the water course by specifying the area observing that it may be either along line XY or along line MN and the decision may be taken on merit of the case. The D.C.O. did not implement the order of the S.C.O. inasmuch as no scheme was published afresh and a new order dated 30.7.1998 was passed. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the order dated 26.6.1998 passed by S.C.O. before the Chief Canal Officer (CCO), who dismissed his appeal on 6.8.1999. Thereafter, he filed a suit for declaration seeking annulment of the order dated 15/26.6.1998 passed by the S.C.O., order dated 30.7.1998 passed by the D.C.O. and order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the C.C.O. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Rohtak, vide his judgment dated 27.5.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Civil Judge, he filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak. The views of the learned District Judge read as under :-

(2.) SH . S.P. Sohri, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that Rattan Singh defendant-respondent did not file any appeal or revision contemplated by Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 105 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules 1976 (for brevity 'the Rules'), and, therefore, the order passed by the S.C.O. dated 26.6.1998 remanding the case to the D.C.O. and directing him to publish the scheme afresh was null and void. According to the learned counsel vide order dated 21.1.1997, the amount of compensation was assessed after the water course was sanctioned out of the land owned by defendant-respondent and others. The failure to challenge order dated 21.1.1997 by defendant-respondent before the Canal Authorities should have been taken into consideration and the appeal by S.C.O. could not have been decided in the manner the order dated 26.6.1998 has been passed. On the basis of the afore-mentioned submissions, the learned counsel argued that the plaintiff-appellant became owner of the land, which was sanctioned for water course owned by defendant-respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel has argued that the District Judge has committed grave error in law by setting- aside the order of the D.C.O. Ex.D-2 dated 30.7.1998 and directing him to follow the direction issued by the S.C.O. in his order Ex.D-1 dated 26.6.1998.

(3.) THE D.C.O. vide his order dated 30.7.1998 did not follow the directions issued by the S.C.O. The District Judge has directed the D.C.O. to comply with those directions by setting-aside his order dated 30.7.1998.