IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1202 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 06, 2009 Ram Kumar .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the appellant that he was entitled to the sanctioning of mutation in his name with regard to the water course ABC as shown in Aksh Shijra in the land comprising square No. 150 Killa Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20/1 from north side of the water course, running from east to west as per order dated 15.1.1976 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa on August 30, 2008, which judgment and decree was upheld in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa on January 30, 2009. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff is now before this Court in a second appeal filed by him under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff, pursuant to the order dated R.S.A. No. 1202 of 2009 -2- 15.1.1976 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, his grand-father Het Ram had deposited the entire amount of compensation of the water course vide receipt No. 103 dated 4.6.1976 with the department but despite the same, mutations were neither sanctioned nor entered. After the death of Het Ram, Lal Chand-father of the plaintiff, had become owner in possession of the suit land and now after the death of Lal Chand, he had become its owner and, therefore, entitled to get entered and sanctioned the mutation with regard to the suit land in his favour, but the Divisional Canal Officer failed to do the same. Moreover, the defendants were bent upon to cut the trees standing between the canal and the water course owned by the plaintiff for which they had no right or authority to do so. The suit was contested by defendant No.4/respondent, who denied passing of any order by the Divisional Canal Officer. According to him, Het Ram had a consolidation water course on the common land of square Nos.180/169, 181/168 which passed through his fields. Therefore, question of sanctioning of water course did not arise. The plaintiff and his ancestors had and have the right to get the mutation of the land of defendant Mani Ram and his brother sanctioned, who are owners in possession of the land under water course which had been left by them in partition for their own irrigation vide mutation No. 2649. The plaintiff had no right to the water course or the trees standing by its side. R.S.A. No. 1202 of 2009 -3- Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Divisional Canal Officer in passing the order dated 15.1.1976 followed the procedure prescribed in Sections 30-A to 30-F of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act and as the same remained unimplemented the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to the relief claimed, more so, when Het Ram, grand-father of the appellant had deposited the compensation amount on 4.6.1976. As per receipt mark-A dated 4.6.1976, an amount of Rs.1687.59p. was deposited by Het Ram with the Canal Department as compensation of water course. Though the order dated 15.1.1976 was passed by Divisional Canal Officer, presumably under Sections 30-A to 30-F of the Act yet there was no strict compliance of the said provisions of law. Under Section 30-A, initially a draft scheme was to be prepared and then estimated costs of such scheme alongwith sketch plan etc. to be proposed. Under Section 30-B, the scheme was to be published for inviting objections and suggestions and afterwards the scheme was to be submitted to Divisional Canal Officer for its approval by Superintending Canal Officer. Following the approval of the scheme, the share-holders were required to be called upon to implement the same. Apart from the deposit of the amount of Rs.1687.59p. by Het Ram vide receipt mark-A, none of the other requisite steps under the relevant provisions of the law had been taken. So much so, even the compensation amount deposited by Het Ram was not paid to Kesra Ram, who was the one entitled to R.S.A. No. 1202 of 2009 -4- the private water course in question. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain the relief sought for by him in his suit. Section 30-G of the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain or decide any question relating to the matter falling under Sections 30-A to 30-F of the Act. Additionally, the present suit had been filed in the year 2002, wherein the plaintiff sought implementation of an order passed in the year 1976. The plaintiff has failed to overcome the legal hurdles which had sprung on his way to obtaining the relief. The concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. These cannot be upset in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 06, 2009 JUDGE satish R.S.A. No. 1202 of 2009 -5- Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO