JAG MAL Vs. DEVI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by plaintiff Jagmal against the appellate decree of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated April 11, 1977 dismissing his appeal against the decree of Munsif Suratgarh passed in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1970 on April 20, 1972 where by his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed

(2.) FACTS in brief are that in his above suit he alleged that he was marusidar of agricultural lands located in Chak No. 24 JRK sq. No. 246 stone Nos. 23 to 27 measuring 10 Bighas. His said agricultural fields were irrigated through sanctioned water course passing through stone Nos. 23 to 26 for last 18 years. Smt. Rama wife of. Ramkaran and Smt. Sajna wife of Devi Lal had purchased land comprised in Square Nos. 23/247 and 24/247 in an auction conducted by Cololonisation Department. It was alleged that Ramkaran, who was impleaded as defendant in the suit, made an application to Executive Engineer, Pilibanga Division, Hanumangarh that the existing water course passing through Sq. Nos. 24/247, 25/247 and 26/247 may be altered and may be passed through the agricultural lands of the plaintiff. The Executive Engineer sent his proposals to the Collector Ganganagar in this regard and the same were accepted by the Collector on October 23, 1969. The plaintiff challenged the recommendations of the Executive Engineer Hanumangarh and the order of the Collector Ganganagar dated October 23, 1969 on various grounds enumerated in para 5 of the plaint. The plaintiff prayed that a permanent injunction may be issued against Ramkaran and State of Rajasthan restraining them from shifting the existing sanctioned water course to his agricultural lands.

(3.) THE trial court framed as may as fine issues. It held that the plaintiff was irrigating his fields through illegal water courses marked A to B in the site plan Ex. 1. He held that the Collector was competent under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 for shifting the water course as had been prayed for by Ramkaran in his application to the Executive Engineer. The order of the Collector was held to be valid, Issue No. 3 was to the effect as to whether any cause of action accrued to the plaintiff against Ramkaran defendant No. 1. This issue had been framed on a plea taken by Ramkaran that Sq. Nos. 23/247 and 24/247 were in the names of Mst. Sajna and Pema and it was necessary to implead them as parties to the suit With regard to this issue the trial court held that it was Ramkaran defendant No. 1 who had made application to the Executive Engineer for shifting of the water course and, therefore, the plaintiff had cause of action against Ram Karan. In view of its findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 as stated above, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.