- (1.) This second appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the appellant for declaring order, Exhibit P-1, providing additional Nakka (opening) on the water-course RD No. 60198-L, Balak Minor to be void and without jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that no fresh scheme was required as the scheme already framed provided that additional Nakka could be approved. This finding was affirmed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge.
(2.) It is not disputed that no notice was served on the appellant before the additional Nakka was provided vide order, Exhibit P-1. Even if it may be accepted for the sake of argument that the additional Nakka could be provided under the scheme already approved, still the persons affected have to be heard before doing so. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that the remedy of appeal and revision was open to the appellant which he has not availed to and that the remedy of suit has been specifically barred by Section 30-G of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act. The provision like the one under Section 30-G does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court when the order is sought to be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The availability of the remedy of appeal and revision against the impugned order under the Act also does not bar the plaintiff to avail of the remedy of a suit. It was for him either to file an appeal or to challenge the impugned order in the civil Court, the same having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) This appeal is consequently allowed and order, Annexure P-1, declared to be null and void against the rights of the appellant. No costs.;