ASHOK KADEMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH, the petitions are listed under the caption "hearing on I. A. ", with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, the writ petitions are finally heard and are disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE petitioners are agriculturists by profession owing agricultural land in Sy. No. 154/1, Annigere Village, measuring in an extent of 8 acres 9 guntas, which has a borewell. It is stated that though Annigere village suffered from severe drought, successively for 3 years, there was sufficient ground water in the borewell on the petitioners' land, used for cultivation of crops, the only livelihood of the petitioners. The petitioners further state that excess water was allowed to be used by the villagers for drinking purpose, free of charge. In view of the drought condition the petitioners allowed the villagers and the local residents to partake of the water from the petitioners' borewell, free of cost. It is the allegation of the petitioners that by letter dated 11-6-2003, Annexure-C, certain borewells in Annigere Village were taken over by the Government, in the interest of general public, based on which the Revenue Inspector, annigere Village by his letter dated 12-6-2003, Annexure-D, informed the petitioners that the borewells were handed over to Town Municipal council, Annigere, the second respondent, on 12-6-2003. Being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) THE petitions are opposed by the respondents by filing their statement of objections. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 by their statement of objections dated 14-1-2004 claim to have taken over the borewells in exercise of the powers under Section 75 of the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964 and handed over the same to the Municipal Authority to provide drinking water to the general public free of cost, in view of the severe drought. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, the underground natural water, since such underground water is the property of the State. The allegation against the petitioners is that, they have sold water, for a price, and made commercial use of the natural resource. In other words, the petitioners profited from selling borewell water. However, it is contended that the application of the petitioner dated 28-6-2003, Annexure-E requesting for sanction of compensation amount is under process.