The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the jurisdictional provisions under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, specifically Section 24 and Section 25.

V.K. Jhanji, J. - This is defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing Khal AB or by depriving the plaintiffs from the enjoyment of the same. As set out in the plaint, the case of the plainiffs was that they purchased land measuring 69 Kanals vide registered sale deed dated 27.5.1983 from Surjit Singh son of Karam Singh. The said land was being irrigated prior to purchase and is still being irrigated that the said Khal is an authorised Khal. They further alleged that after the land was purchased by them, defendants also purchased the remaining area of Surjit Singh and threatened to demolish the Khal. They also alleged that the Khal in question has been in existence for the last more than 30 years.

3. Upon notice of the suit, defendants filed written statement wherein they admitted the fact of purchase of land. The, denied that the Khal is a sanctioned and authorised or was running for the last more than 30 years. Defendants submitted that the land of the plaintiff was never irrigated through the alleged Khal AB. Defendants also denied that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the remedy of the plaintiffs is before the Canal Authorities.

4. Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues and one of the issues was whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. Trial Court held that The Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for short the Act) does not provide any remedy to a person to restrain another person from preventing him from demolishing the Khal and, therefore, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On merits, trial Court found that the Khal is not a sanctioned or authorised Khal as the plaintiffs were not able to produce any order or document showing it to be a sanctioned authorised one. Trial Court, on finding that the Khal was in existence for more than 30 years, restrained the defendants, from demolishing the same. On appeal, first Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal.

5. The submission made on behalf of the defendants is that the Courts below have erroneously held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is contended that Section 24 of the Act provides not only for restoration of watercourse but also gives power to the Divisional Canal Officer to give a direction in case a person obstructs the water course. or temporary watercourse. Section 24 of the Act reads as under :

24. "Restoration of demolished or altered etc. watercourses. -

(1) If a person demolishes, alters, enlarges or obstructs a watercourse or a temporary watercourse or causes any damage thereto, any person affected there may apply to the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer for directing the restoration of the same to its original condition.

(2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer may after making such enquiry as he may deem fit require by a notice in writing served on the person found to be responsible for so demolishing, altering, enlarging, obstructing or causing damage to restore at his own cost the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within such period not exceeding twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice :

Provided that in case of a temporary watercourse, its restoration shall not be for a period exceeding one year.

(3) If such person falls to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer to restore the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within the period specified in the notice served on him under sub- section (2), the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer may cause the watercourse or temporary to be restored to its original condition and recover the cost incurred in respect of such restoration from the