Dua, J. - (1.) THESE two cases (Civil Writs Nos. 262 and 276 of 196l) were heard together and would be disposed of by the same order.
(2.) BOTH these writ petitions initially came up before me sitting singly and during the arguments the point canvassed at the bar related to the controversy whether the acquisition of the land in question was governed by the Land Acquisition Act or whether the State could only proceed under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. The point, however, has not been seriously pressed at the bar before us now because Section 30 -A of the Canal and Drainage Act construed in the light of the definition of drainage work, as contained in Section 3(3) of the said Act has been conceded by the counsel not to apply to the case in hand, with the result that it has been expressly conceded at the bar that so far as the present controversy goes the Land Acquisition Act and the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act can coexist and there is no question of the applicability of one to the exclusion of the other.
(3.) THE Petitioners' counsel has, however, submitted that in the present case Section 57 of the Canal and Drainage Act should be complied with and that the alignment to chalk out the water drain to carry away the 'sem' water has been varied at the instance of the Minister concerned, without complying with the said section.;