The Court dismissed an appeal against a non-suit order. It held that under Section 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters under Sections 17 to 24. Therefore, a suit for restoration of a watercourse was barred.
Appeal dismissed as no merit found; Civil Court jurisdiction is barred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vinod kumar 2014.05.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2809 of 2011 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2809 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:13.05.2014
Sanwal Ram and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Akash Singla, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The plaintiffs have been non-suited by the Courts below on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is an admitted fact that the prayer in the suit is regarding restoration of dismantled watercourse. The SDO passed the order of restoration of the watercourse to its original condition for one year, whereas the procedure for restoration of a dismantled watercourse is provided under Section 24(3) of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”). The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 25 of the Act, which reads as under:-
“ 25. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any
RSA No.2809 of 2011 (O&M)
[ 2 ]
vinod kumar 2014.05.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
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.”
According to the aforesaid provision, a Civil Court would not
have the jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matter falling under Sections 17 to 24 of the Act. Accordingly, the issue involved is as to whether the present suit is also barred by Section 25 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a decision in the case of Neki Ram v. The Deputy Collector, Adampur Water Services Division and others, 2007(1) PLR 603 in which order of the Deputy Collector passed under Section 55 of the Act regarding the distribution of water was challenged in which it was held that since the watercourse has been dug out from the land of the petitioner for supply of water to the fields of the respondent without hearing him, therefore, the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction and in that matter, the writ petition was entertained. However, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable because in the said case, the issue with regard to Civil Court jurisdiction was not involved, rather a writ petition was filed before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further cited a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Makhan Singh, 2002(1) PLR 822 to contend that in case the authorities have not followed procedure and have passed the order against settled principles of natural justice without affording opportunity of hearing, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be attracted.
[ 3 ]
vinod kumar 2014.05.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2809 of 2011 (O&M)
In my view, the aforesaid judgment in State of Haryana's case (supra) is not applicable because it is categorically provided in Section 25 of the Act that the Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to the matter falling under Sections 17 to 24 of the Act and since restoration of a dismantled watercourse falls within those Sections, therefore, the Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction.
No other point has been urged.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as
no question of law much-less substantial is involved therein.
Dismissed.
May 13, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try a suit for restoration of a dismantled watercourse under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974.
Whether Section 25 of the Act bars Civil Court jurisdiction for matters falling under Sections 17 to 24.
Whether exceptions for natural justice violations override the statutory bar of jurisdiction in Section 25.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neki Ram v. The Deputy Collector, Adampur Water Services Division and othersDistinguished¶26
Neki Ram v. The Deputy Collector, Adampur Water Services Division and others, 2007(1) PLR 603
State of Haryana v. Makhan SinghDistinguished¶27
State of Haryana v. Makhan Singh, 2002(1) PLR 822
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanwal Ram
State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
