N SANKUPPA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners in these cases are owners possessed of lands situated in savanoor or adjacent villages of puttur taluk, dakshina kannada district. They claim to cultivate in the said lands areca, coconut, banana, cocoa and pepper; that ihcy are agriculturists by profession and arc solely dependent on agriculture for their livelihood; that the lands where cultivation is being carried on arc on the banks of either nelhravathy or kumaradhara rivers; that the water from the said rivers is utilised not only for cultivation of their lands but also for household purposes and for maintaining their cattle from time immemorial; that formerly the petitioners and their predecessors were lifting water by some mechanical means and that from the year 1967 onwards or thereabout the petitioners obtained licences to draw water from the said rivers by using electric pumps. The licences given to the petitioners are produced in the cases and they form two sets; one set of licences indicate that they are permanent in nature, not being limited to any particular period. However, a clause is included therein empowering the government to revoke the licences without specifying any reason and the licensee within a period of six months from the date of termination of such licences, has to remove the mechanical appliances and all other work connected with the same and restore the land or its part to its original condition as far as possible. In the other set of licences a condition is incorporated limiting the period of licence to five years excluding, however, the utilisation of water for the period between 1st February to 15th of June every year. It is made clear in that set of licences that the permission granted is purely temporary and would not entitle the petitioners to claim any permanent rights. It is also stated therein that the executive engineer reserves the right to cancel the licences if the minimum summer flow is not sufficient to meet the requirements of water to Manglore town, Manglore port, fertiliser factory and so on. The validity of these conditions is also called in question in these petitions.

(2.) the government on 18th may, 1987 issued a circular stating that since water was being indiscriminately utilised without reference to the needs relating to drinking purposes and requirement thereto and instructed the concerned engineer and irrigation officer to prohibit the lifting of water between February and June every year so that water scarcity is not felt in towns and villages in the vicinity for drinking purposes. On this basis the licences issued contain a bar as to utilisation of water from 1st February to 15th of June every year. The validity of the aforesaid circular and the consequent action taken by the Karnataka electricity board is also called in question in these petitions.

(3.) considering the complexity of the matter, at my request Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned standing counsel for the central government, assisted the court as amicus curiae and the court is beholden to him for the valuable services rendered by him.