Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the three petitioners namely; Bachansingh, Ratansingh and Balwant Singh each of them were allotted 10 bighas land in chak No. 13-H. There is no dispute that the allotment of land was made by the competent officer to the petitioners. There is also no dispute that petitioners were allotted the land in dispute as irrigated land after converting the same for Gair Mumkin to Mumkin before allotment was made in favour of the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioners only grievances is that notwithstanding the fact that land was allotted to them as irrigated land by charging the price as was required to be paid for irrigated land, they are not being supplied with the water for irrigation from the water course which is passing through their lands in the Ganganal Canal Area.
(3.) In the first instance, all the petitioners had filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif, Sriganganagar. On an application moved under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC, the Munsif had passed an interim order for supply of water in favour of the petitioners. Against that order state went in appeal before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar who allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of Learned Munsiff, Sriganganagar on the ground that in view of Section 52 of the Raj. Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, civil suit is not maintainable. Against the said order, three (3) revision petitions were filed by the petitioners before this Court. This court in its order dated 9th Sept. 1988 upheld the order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar. However loooking to facts of the case this court directed the petitioners to apply under section 20 of the Act before the concerned authority for supply of water within 10 days. Irrigation authorities were directed to pass proper order on that application within a period of 2 months. During the pendency of application, this court passed orders for interim arrangement. While recording the facts of the case the court recorded as under : "The facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted a land in 13-H Murba No. 22 Kila No. 1 total 10 Bighas. This land was Nahri. The possession of land was given to him. This land has been recorded as a Nahri in all the correspondence. The land was put in a proper cultivable condition but the irrigation facility was not given." While upholding the plea of ouster jurisdiction of Civil Court the court observed as under : "I have heard both the learned counsel at length and I think the view taken by the appellate court regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court is concerned, that view does not appear to be erroneous. However; looking to the balance of convenience and the harsh effect which is going to bring about on the petitioner who have laboured for putting his land in a proper condition, I deem it just and proper to direct that the petitioner may afresh apply under section 20 of the Act before the concerned authority for supply of water within 10 days and irrigation authorities shall pass order as far as possible within a period of two months from today, after hearing parties in accordance with law.";