Gyasi Ram vs Gyani and Others

P.N. Goel, J.—This is an appeal against an order of acquittal dated 2-3-1974 passed by Canal Magistrate, II Class, Lower Division, Agra.

The case of the complainant Gyasi Ram was that the Respondents had demolished the water channel which after consolidation proceedings ran through the field of Gyani, Respondent No. 1, and that prior to the consolidation the gool ran by the side of the field of Gyani.

Defence of the Respondents was that no such gool existed and that the complainant brought the case out of sheer enmity.

The complainant examined himself, Bhola Ram, Niroti, Chandan Singh and Nita Ram. Patraul. On the other side the Respondents examined one Rajendra Singh. On an appraisal of the evidence of the parties the Canal Magistrate found that there was no satisfactory proof that gool was provided in consolidation proceedings as asserted by the complainant and that the present complaint was an outcome of enmity.

Parties counsel have been heard. Record has been examined. The complainant did not prove that the Irrigation/Canal department had constructed the gool in question. The complainant did not prove that the gool in question was a recognised gool for the use of the members of the public. He also did not prove that the gool was constructed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 and subsequent relevant sections of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. In these circumstances, the Respondents cannot be convicted u/s 70(1) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act.

Even if it be assumed that there was a gool as alleged by the complainant for the last 25 years, it is obvious that it was because of the licence/permission of Gyani. This licence could easily be revoked by Gyani at any time. Therefore, if Gyani and his companions demolished the gool, the complainant has no right to prosecute the Respondents u/s 70 of the aforesaid Act. In the result the order of acquittal cannot be set aside by this Court.

Appeal is dismissed.