AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.
This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 483, 484, 485, 486, 487 and 488 of 1983, as all these appeals were disposed of by one judgment by the District Judge, Bhiwani, dated 21st August, 1982.
The brief facts are that the Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (defendantappellant) has constructed a water course in village Halluwas, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. Under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (shortly the Act), as contemplated under section 22 thereof proceedings were initiated to recover the costs of this project from the landowners. Some of the landowners who are plaintiffs in case have alleged that the land owned by them does not fall within the command area and that their land cannot possibly be irrigated by means of the water course constructed by the corporation and, therefore, no recovery could be effected from them. It has been alleged that the level of the land owned by the plaintiffs is 5 or 10 feet higher than the level of the drain built by the Corporation and that their land does not fall within the command area, but, despite that the Corporation, through its Executive Engineer, served a notice for the recovery of the costs of the project from them. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit, giving rise to these appeals for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained permanently from recovering the cost of the project from them and from arresting them in the event of their failure to pay the amount of costs. The suits were contested on the plea that the land owned by the plaintiffs fell within the command area and their land could be irrigated by means of Pakka Khal built by them. It was, therefore, asserted that the plaintiffs are legally bound to pay the proportionate costs of the project. Certain preliminary objections were also taken including that of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The trial Court found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and its jurisdiction was not barred under section 25 of the Act, as contended on behalf of the defendant. It was further found that the demand raised by the defendant was illegal, as the land owned by the plaintiffs did not fall within the command area. Consequently, the plaintiffs suits were decreed. In appeal, the learned District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus, maintained the decrees passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendantCorporation has filed these second appeals in this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it has been wrongly held that the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs did not fall within the definition of the "culturable commanded area'''' as contained in section 2(5) of the Act. It has been next contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Act.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record and the statute, I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in these appeals. "Culturable commanded area'''' is defined in section 2(5) of the Act as under :
"Culturable commanded area'' means that portion of a culturable irrigable area which is commanded by flow or lift irrigation from an irrigation channel, outlet or State tubewell;''''
Section 22 of the Act provides for the recovery of costs from the shareholders in proportion to the "culturable commanded area'''' under the scheme. It has been found as a fact by both the authorities below that the level of the land owned by the plaintiffs is much higher than the level of the adjoining area and that their land can be irrigated only by means of a sprinkler and that the drain has not been built into their land. Admittedly, the sprinklers have not been provided to the plaintiffs to irrigate their land. It has been further found that the plaintiffs'' land could not be said to be said to be part of the commanded area and they are not the beneficiaries from the drain and, therefore, it could not be disputed that no recovery towards the costs of the drain could not be disputed that no recovery towards the costs of the drain could be effected from them. Nothing has been brought out to suggest that the said findings of the Courts below were erroneous in any manner.
The second question is, whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit, or not? A reference was made to section 25 of the Act which runs as under :
"25. 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 matter falling under sections 17 to 24.''''
Admittedly, in the present case, the recovery was being made from the plaintiffs as contemplated under section 22 of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any provision under the Act under which the persons whose area did not fall within the "culturable commanded area'''' were entitled to claim the relief under the Act when the recovery was being made against them. Once it is so found that there was no remedy under the Act, then it could not be successfully argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under section 25 of the Act. Moreover, in that situation, recovery could not be made under section 22 of the Act.
No other point arises, nor has any been argued. Consequently, all the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.