Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Haryana vs Makhan Singh And Ors. on 4 January, 2002
Author: Bakhshish Kaur
Bench: Bakhshish Kaur
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. The orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa Division, Sirsa, dated 27.8.1976, imposing 15 times and 18 times penalty for alleged unauthorised irrigation and damaging the outlet, were challenged by the plaintiff-respondents by way of filing a civil suit for declaration.
2. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising certain objections, including the point that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thus, the pleas raised by both the parties gave rise to the framing of the following issues by the trial court on July 21, 1977:-
"1. Whether the order dated 27.8.76 passed by the Divisional Canal officer is illegal and void for the reasons detailed in para No. 7 of the plaint? OPP.?
2. Whether a valid notice under Section 80 CPC was served before filing the present suit, if not, its effect?OPP.
3. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the present suit is barred under the provisions of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1976? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, if no, what is proper valuation? OPP.
5. Relief."
3. The learned trial Court had returned findings on all the issues except issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. As a consequence thereof, the suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hisar on March 28, 1979. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. It was accepted on August 7, 1979, as a result of which the suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with this order, the defendants, now appellants, preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. Sultan Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents.
5. The point in controversy is limited to the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court, as according to Mr. Sultan Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under Section 25 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
6. Section 25 of the Act reads 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 matters falling under Section 17 to 24."
7. It is true where the jurisdiction of the civil Court to go into the matter is barred when a special Act provides a remedy, then a civil suit cannot be entertained by the Court and a party is required to avail the remedy under the Act, but what will be the position where the authority concerned does not follow the procedure envisaged thereunder and passes an order which is against the settled principles of natural justice. In such a situation, the jurisdiction of the civil court will be attracted.
8. It is made out from the record that the respondents were not given a hearing nor their grievances were entertained in accordance with law. Thus, the orders have been passed by the Divisional Canal Officer without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents by imposing penalty for unauthorised irrigation. It would certainly amount to violating the principle of natural justice.
9. Thus, where the order by the authority is a nullity having violated the principles of natural justice then civil court will be within its competence to entertain the suit and, the well reasoned finding recorded by the first Appellate Court does not call for interference for the aforesaid reasons.