KHETA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, dated July 31, 1973.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff and one Lekh Ram are owners of adjoining fields which are irrigated from outlet at R.D. No. 74484/64404-R Balak Minor. A water course has been provided for the irrigation of the aforesaid fields. A Jhallar was installed by the plaintiff for irrigation of his fields which is one kila away from the main water-course. Lekh Ram moved an application before the Divisional Canal Officer requesting him that he should get the Jhallar of the plaintiff removed as it had obstructed the water course. He issued a notice under Section 30-FF of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordering him to remove the same. The plaintiff submitted two objection petitions, one on January 1, 1969 and the other on January 10, 1969 before the Divisional Canal Officer stating therein that the notice issued by him under Section 30-FF was without jurisdiction and the same be revoked. The objection petitions have not been decided by him uptill today. In the meantime he sought the help of the police for removal of the Jhallar. The plaintiff filed an appeal against his order on March 19, 1969 to the Superintending Canal Officer which was dismissed on April 23, 1969. After the dismissal of the appeal he instituted the present suit and prayed for permanent injunction restraining the State from interfering in his Jhallar on the ground '.that the Divisional Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 30-FF. The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and that the Jhallar created no obstruction in the water course in question. Consequently, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hissar who held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction sought for. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. He has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Divisional Canal Officer had not proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Section 30-FF and, therefore, the order passed by him is without jurisdiction. He further urges that in case the order of a Tribunal is without jurisdiction, then he can challenge its order in a Civil Court even though its jurisdiction is specifically barred. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to reproduce sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of Section 30-FF and Section 30-G of the Act, which are as follows :-