JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the Addl. District Judge, who set aside the order of the trial Court. In consequence thereof, ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
2. Briefly, the facts are that Balwant Singh son of Masudi applied for shifting of head of outlet from RD-8500-L to RC-9070L Pabra Sub Branch before the Divisional Canal Officer on the plea that the area in his possession is not getting proper irrigation from the existing source. The Divisional Canal Officer got the case investigated through Ziledar who after investigation and site inspection recommended the case for shifting of the head of the outlet. A scheme was submitted tinder Section 17 of the Haryana Canal & Drainage Act (for short the Act). The scheme was published under Section 18(1) of the Act. Objections and suggestions, if any, were invited. Notice was served on all concerned under Rule 96. The scheme was personally explained to the shareholders who attended the office of the Divisional Canal Officer on 25.6.1987. The matter was finally decided on 23.7.1987. The Divisional Canal Officer rejected the claim for shifting of the head of the outlet. This order was challenged before the Superintending Canal Officer, who allowed the appeal and accepted the claim for shifting of the head of the outlet. Some of the shareholders filed appeal before the Chief Canal Officer who dismissed the same. The order of the Superintending Canal Officer and Chief Canal Officer was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 2036 of 1992. The writ petition was dismissed on 21.2.1992 by a Division Bench of this Court as this Court found no ground to interfere with the orders of the Superintending Canal Officer/Chief Canal Officer. The petitioners in the writ petition also made a prayer that they were not made party before the Superintending Canal Officer/Chief Canal Officer. On this contention it was observed that the petitioners if so aggrieved can move the concerned Authority for appropriate remedy. After some time some of the shareholders again made an application before the Superintending Canal Officer, who vide detailed order dated 27.7.1992 dismissed the application.
3. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs who claimed them selves to be the shareholders. In the suit, a declaration was sought that the orders passed by the Superintending Canal Officer and Chief Canal Officer in connection with the shifting of the head of the outlet are wrong, illegal void against the facts and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. In the suit, it was alleged that no scheme as contemplated under the Act was published. Sketch plan was not prepared or published at the time of publication of the Scheme and the order passed by the Authorities are not proper and justified.
4. The suit is being contested by the defendants. Alongwith. the suit an application was filed for grant of adinterim injunction. Trial Court refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In Consequence thereof, application under Order 30 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was declined. Plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge who after setting aside the order of the trial Court, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. This order is being challenged in this Civil revision.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the order under revision cannot be sustained.
6. Appellate Court while upsetting the order of the trial Court, observed that the procedure laid down in Sections 17 to 24 of the Act was not followed and therefore orders of Superintending Canal Officer and Chief Canal Officer, prima facie are without jurisdiction and can be challenged in a civil suit. The first Appellate Court while deciding the application for grant of injunction did not take into consideration the order of the Divisional Canal Officer who in his order has clearly stated that the scheme was published through the Ziledar under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act and notice under Rules 7 and 96 were also issued to the shareholders Some of the shareholders appeared before the Divisional Canal Officer who explained the scheme to them and thereafter passed an order. In appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, none of the shareholders made a grievance that the scheme was not published in accor dance with the provisions of the Act or rules framed thereunder. Before the Chief Canal Officer as well, no such pleas was taken. The writ petition filed in this Court was also dismissed. The grievance made by the respondents in the suit is that individual notices were not served on them Reading of Rule 7 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, 1976 clearly indicates that there is no such requirement for serving individual notices. Rule 7 of the ibid Rules provides that all schemes prepared under Section 17 of the Act shall be published for inviting objections/suggestions by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the village or villages concerned, displaying the sketch plan. This further provides that the Lambardar concerned shall be informed about the scheme and he in all the affected villages shall by beat of drum or in any other customary manner, announce the place where the details of the scheme can be inspected. The acknowledgement of Lambardar and his statement of having announced and given publicity shall be recorded in the file of the scheme and shall be the conclusive proof of such announcement and publicity.
7. The respondents before the Courts below have no where challenged that procedure under Rule 7 of the Rules was not followed. The Authorities under the Act thus were competent to pass order for shifting of head of the outlet and they having done so, after following the procedure prima facie jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 25 of the Act is barred unless it can be shown that orders were passed without following the requirement of law. In this case on perusal of orders of the Canal Authorities I am of the view that proper procedure was followed, and therefore, there was no case made out by the plaintiffs followed of ad-interim injunction.
8. Counsel for the plaintiffs also contended that no procedure for acquisition of land under Section 21 was followed and the scheme did not provide for the grant of awarding compensation. I am not impressed with this contention because all these points could be raised before the Canal Authorities. No such contention was made before the Canal Authorities and therefore, f am not prepared to go into this contention as this Court is not sitting in appeal over the orders of the Canal Authorities.
9. Consequently this civil revision is allowed, order of the Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with no order as to costs. Resultantly ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs shall stand vacated. It is however made clear that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding that application for grant of ad-interim injunction and will not be taken into consideration while deciding the suit on merits.