Civil Revision No. 3449 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3449 of 2009 Date of decision : 8.1.2010 Gram Panchayat .....Petitioner Versus Beer Pal and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Ashish Handa, Advocate for Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate the respondents No.1 to 18. Ms. Neena Madan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana S. D. ANAND, J. The order under challenge upheld the objection raised by the defendant-respondents pleading ouster of civil court jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter pertaining to the construction of a water course. In support of the finding, the learned Trial Court relied upon Section 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which is reproduced hereunder:- “Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court : Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or 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 Section 17 to 24.” It is argued, on behalf of the petitioner, that invocation of the ouster clause was not appropriate because canal authorities had no jurisdiction whatsoever to order the carving out of a water course where Civil Revision No. 3449 of 2009 -2- **** none ever existed. The plea aforementioned deserves invalidation in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that the plaintiff-petitioner did file an appeal before the Sub Divisional Canal Officer (which came to be rejected vide order dated 11.9.2006 and they also had had recourse to the further higher forum of Divisional Canal Officer, Faridabad, which, too, negatived their plea, vide order dated 17.2.2006. In view of the fact that the plaintiffs-respondents have already taken recourse to the remedy available to them before the indicated higher canal authorities, it is incompetent on their part to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for adjudication of a matter which is squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the canal authorities. The provisions of the Act are comprehensive enough to take care of the relevant grievance. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to fault the impugned order on any valid score. The petition deserves to be negatived and it is so ordered accordingly. January 8, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No