R.S.A. No. 3953 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3953 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2011 Subhash and others ......Appellants Versus Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that they had inherited ancestral agricultural land from their forefathers and were in possession of their share falling on RD No.45242-R on Chaudhary minor. In a meeting held on 3.11.2004 defendants undertook the cases for conversion of CCA to UCA through its officials qua the lands over which brick kilns had been set up. No notice was issued to the plaintiffs before finalization of the scheme. The order passed by defendant No.1 dated 29.12.2004 was illegal. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the order dated 29.12.2004 had been passed R.S.A. No. 3953 of 2009 (O&M) 2 by the competent authority on the basis of record and prevailing circumstances at the spot. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the order dated 29.12.2004 passed by defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and not bindings upon the rights of the plaintiffs and is liable to be set aside, on the grounds, as alleged in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable ? OPR. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit ? OPR. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts ? OPD. 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD. 8. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and quashed the impugned orders dated 29.12.2004 and 9.2.2007. The defendants were left at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional R.S.A. No. 3953 of 2009 (O&M) 3 District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Section 25 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act') 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.” In the present case the impugned order was passed in terms of Section 17 of the Act. As per Section 25 of the Act Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain for deciding any question relating to matters falling under Sections 17 to 24 of the Act. The plaintiffs were aggrieved that they had not been heard before the finalization of the scheme. Section 20 of the Act reads as under :- “20. Appeal and revision :- An appeal against the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 18 shall lie to the Superintending Canal Officer within thirty days of the publication of the scheme under Section 19. (2) An appeal shall lie against the decision of the Superintending Canal Officer passed under sub-section (1) in regard to any of the mattes covered under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (10 of R.S.A. No. 3953 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Section 17 to the Chief Canal Officer within thirty days of the date of such decision. (3) The Chief Officer or the Superintending Canal Officer may suo motu call for the record of any case, pending before or disposed of by any subordinate authority of the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or proprietary of any proceeding or of any order made therein and may pas such order in relation thereto as he may think fit. Provided that no such order shall be made without affording the person affected an opportunity of being heard.” The plaintiffs had failed to resort to the remedy provided under the Act, but had filed the civil suit. The learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 3, 2011 Anand