Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain matters under Sections 17 to 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, as per Section 25, unless there is a violation of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

1. Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No. 2 as the plaintiff.

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course.

4. Defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming that in terms of Section 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under Section 17 to 24 of the Act and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The application was resisted by the plaintiff claiming that the water course having been sanctioned in violation of the principle of natural justice without calling the plaintiff, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction dehors Section 25 of the Act.

5. Trial Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC holding that wherever authority acts in violation of the procedure as prescribed under the statute and passes an order in violation of the principle of natural justice, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will not be ousted. Reliance was placed upon the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Makkhan Singh, 2002 (2) RCR Civil 635.

6. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order has drawn attention of this Court to the prayer clause. He submits that from bare perusal of the prayer clause, it is evident that challenge has been raised to order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, dated 7 th of March, 2017 approving the water course. The power exercised by the Divisional Canal Officer is under Section 18 of the Act. He submits that under Section 25 of the Act there is a complete and explicit bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts from entertaining or deciding any question relating to the matters falling under Sections 17 to 24 of the Act. He thus submits that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and assuming the jurisdiction even though the same was barred under the statute. He places reliance upon law laid down in the cases of Bahadur and others vs. Partap and another, 2010 (4) PLR 735, Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (1) PLR 208, Kiranjit Singh Bawa vs. State Bank of India, RSA No. 9835 of 2018 (O&M) decided on 5th of February, 2019, Resham Singh vs. Jaswant Singh, CR No. 577 of 2023 (O&M) decided on 30th of January, 2023 and Gurinder Singh vs. Gobind Kaur, 2022 AIR CC 554.

7. Mr. Hooda on the other hand submits that from the contents of the plaint, it is evident that the ground to challenge the order is w.r.t. forgery of signatures of the plaintiff on the proceedings leading to approval of the plan. He has been shown to be present despite not being there. He further submits that wherever the procedure is violated while exercising the statutory powers, Section 25 cannot be read to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He submits that as per settled law the authorities under Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 are quasi-judicial. It is only the Civil Court who can conclude w.r.t. comparison of the signatures.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

9. State of Haryana enacted 1974 Act to regulate irrigation and drainage in Haryana. Part III of the Act deals with construction and mainte