JAGE RAM AND OTHERS Vs. ROSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. The Defendants, who are Petitioners in this revision, had applied to the Canal Authorities under Section 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the restoration of the Khal on the plea that it was a legally running Khal which Roshan had illegally demolished. The Canal Authorities accepted Defendants' plea and ordered restoration of the Khal after giving a finding that it was a running Khal and was wrongly demolished. Aggrieved from that order, Roshan went up in appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 24(4) of the Act, but his appeal failed. Thereafter, betook no steps to have that order set aside When those orders were going to be implemented, he filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from digging the Khal and applied for the grant of a temporary injunction. In the suit and the application it was pleaded that the Defendants wanted to dig the Khal forcibly which they have no right to do. The order of the Canal Authorities and the failure of the Plaintiff's appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer were not disclosed in the suit and the application and were withheld. When notice of the suit and the application went to the Defendants, they brought these facts to the notice of the Court and also pleaded the civil suit was not competent in view of Section 25 of the Act. Both the Courts below granted temporary injunction on the premises that it was not established if there was a Khal which could be ordered to be restored. This is Defendants revision against the aforesaid orders.

(2.) FOR two reasons, the Plaintiff was not entitled interim relief. Firstly, he did not disclose true facts and withheld from the Court important and material facts. In such a state of affairs, only in exceptional circumstances, interim relief or indulgence should have been shown to a delinquent party No exceptional case is made out. Secondly, the Canal Authorities recorded a finding that there was a Khal from which the Defendants were entitled to draw water which had been illegally demolished by the Plaintiff The Canal Authorities had jurisdiction to record such a finding Considering that the finding of the Canal Authorities was wrong, the Plaintiff had contest -el that finding by filing an appeal but remained unsuccessful If he had no other remedy under the statute, then the only remedy was to challenge that order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by a petition under Article 136 thereof. Because Section 25 of the Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under Sections 17 to 24, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Actor any other law for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under Sections 17 to 24. The Canal Authorities clearly gave a finding that the Khal in dispute is covered by Section 24 of the Act and also recorded a finding that it was illegally demolished by the Plaintiff and ordered its restoration. This matter clearly falls within the ambit of Section 24(1) of the Act Under Section 24(1) of the Act, even a temporary water course can be ordered to be restored if demolished. It has been held by highest Court in M/s Kamal Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay : A.I.R 1965 S.C. 1942, that even if on a point of jurisdiction, there is erroneous decision by the authority under a special statute and the remedy of appeal and revision is provided by that statute and if there is a provision excluding jurisdiction of the Civil Court, civil suit would not be competent on the ground that of jurisdiction was wrongly decided. Therefore, civil suit prima facie was not competent with the result that interim injunction not to enforce or not to have a legally passed order implemented, cannot be granted or in any case should not have been granted.