RSA No. 4954 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4954 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.4.2011. Boota Singh .......Appellant Vs. Balwant Singh & Others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land and further sought the injunction that defendants be restrained from digging any water course through the suit land illegally. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was in possession of the suit land. There was a sanctioned water course outside the suit land. There was a private water course existing in the suit land which was being used by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 to 3, in their written statement, averred that a water course was running in the land of the plaintiff. No new water course was being constructed in the suit land. Defendants No. 4 to 9, in their written statement, RSA No. 4954 of 2009 (O&M) -2- averred that sanctioned water course was running in the land of the plaintiff. The same was being used by the defendants for the last 20 years. Defendants No. 1 to 3 were lining the kacha water course in existence, in pursuance of the order dated 24.12.1999, passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Hissar. No appeal had been filed against the said order. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as sought? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as consequential relief as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the Civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 14.1.2008, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 4 and 6 to 9 preferred an appeal. Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2009 allowed the appeal, filed by the defendants and consequently suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Section 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, RSA No. 4954 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 1974 reads as under:- “ 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 Sections 17 to 24.” Order dated 24.12.1999 was passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, vide which the water course was ordered to be brick lined. In case, the plaintiff was aggrieved by the said order, he could have challenged the same before the canal authorities but the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 04, 2011 Gurpreet