B. LAKSHMINARAYANAIAH Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an agriculturist, states that he has been using the water flowing in the Government land in Sy. No. 74 to irrigate his lands since several years. His grievance is that the 2nd respondent by passing the impugned resolution at Annexure-C, dated 17-11-1997 permitted some persons to use the water from the stream where the petitioner has been using the water, which has affected the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted representations in this regard. However, tide impugned resolution at Annexure-E, dated 16-4-1999, the 2nd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to make use of the water from the aforesaid stream. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid two resolutions of the 2nd respondents and for the direction to the respondents to permit him to make use of the water flowing from Sy No. 74.

(2.) In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the refusal of permission to the petitioner to make use the water is sought to be justified on the ground that petitioner has got sufficient water source from his own lands. But, in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 could not have allowed the persons to make use of the water without the permission from the Revenue Department and Irrigation Department as the land from where the water flows is a Government land. Thus, the permission granted is without the authority of law.

(3.) It is an undisputed fact that the land from where the water is being used belongs to Government. For the use of water for irrigation from Government lakes, ponds, streams, etc., permission from the Irrigation Department has to be obtained. The resolution passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-C permitting some of the villagers to use the water is without the authority of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Since permission sought for by the petitioner to make use the water is refused, the same need not be quashed.