RSA No.4198 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4198 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2011 Satbir Singh .....Appellant Versus Haryana State and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.V.Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that order dated 22.7.2004 passed by defendant No.3 approving alteration of outlets vide which existing Chirod Minor has been extended upto RD 18250 from RD 5940 tail on Deosar Feeder at RD 46500 and further creating outlets on the new Chirod Minor for running warabandi is illegal, null and void. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2008 ,the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendants was partly allowed by the District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2009. It was held that the extension RSA No.4198 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of Minor from RD 5940 to RD18250 would not be a water course but would be a minor which did not require any publication of Scheme under Sections 17 and 18 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Ac, 1974 (for short `the Act). However, the distribution of water from that minor to different fields would be covered by different water course. The judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent of extending the minor from RD 5940 to 18250 was set aside. The defendants were directed to prepare scheme for the water course from exit point of extended minor or in the middle of the minor as the Exigency so desired. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that presently Chirod Minor was functioning upto RD No.5940 of Deosar Feeder at RD- 46500. The land of the plaintiff situated in village Chirod was being irrigated from RD No.5940. In the year 1997, plaintiff along with some other residents had sought construction of a new minor on Deosar Feeder. However, no responsible Officer of the defendants visited the site nor any draft scheme was prepared. No objections were invited from the share holders. Provisions of Section 17 and18 of the Act were not complied with while approving the construction of New Chirod Minor. Defendants in their written statement alleged that the suit was not maintainable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was alleged that the scheme had been prepared as per law and after obtaining objections and necessary approval from the higher authority, the minor had been extended/constructed as per the prayer of the shareholders. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were RSA No.4198 of 2010 (O&M) 3 framed by the Trial Court:- “1. Whether the order dated 22.7.2004 passed by defendant No.3 approving Alteration from of outlets vide which the existing Chirod minor which is upto RD 5940 Tail on Deosar Feeder at RD 46500, has been shown to be extended upto RD 18250 and further creating outlets on the alleged New Chirod Minor is wrong null and void, illegal against law and facts and is liable to be set aside as prayed for ?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of service of notice u/s80CPC?OPD 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. It has been held in Hamir Singh and others vs. Chief Canal Officer Haryana and others 1979 PLJ 86 that the procedure laid down under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act is not required to be followed for making alignment/change of minor. Para 7 of the judgment reads as under:- RSA No.4198 of 2010 (O&M) 4 “A Minor is not a channel in terms of rule 100. The change in the alighment of a Minor on the file will also not amount to abandonment or extension of irrigation channel. It is, therefore, evident that no statutory approval of the Chief Canal officer under rule 100 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, 1976, was required for making a change in the proposed alignment of the Minor and that too in records before execution o the scheme. The administrative approval given by the Chief Canal Officer to the impugned change in the alignment of the minor which was even otherwise technically sound would,therefore, not stand vitiated because it was so desired by the Irrigation and Power Minister.” In these circumstances, the learned District Judge rightly held that the extension of minor cannot be treated a water course but would be a minor and realignment of minor did not require any publication of Scheme under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, To this extent, the appeal was rightly accepted by the learned District Judge.No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 10, 2011 arya