KANHYA LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GYANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 12-8-1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gyanpur confirming the decision of the Munsif dated 28-7-87 whereby an injunction sought by them has been refused. Since the parties have already exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits a joint request was made that the writ petition itself may be disposed of. THE learned counsel were, therefore, heard on merits of the writ petition also.

(2.) THE petitioners are Harijan residents of the village to whom some building plots carved out of survey plot No. 99 had been allotted for raising their houses and admittedly they are in possession thereof. In plot No. 99 there exists an old masonary well and the petitioners claim a right to draw water from it for drinking purposes. Since opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 wanted to instal a diesel pump for drawing water for irrigating their fields asserting their ownership on the well, the petitioners had to rush to the court for seeking a restraint order.

(3.) IT will be noticed that wells are conspicuous by their absence from various properties enumerated therein as regards which rights of the intermediaries have been extinguished. Section 9 of the Act on the other hand is in the nature of exception and it only saves the rights of intermediaries, tenants or other persons in respect of the various properties mentioned therein. While section 6 of the Act divests that intermediaries of their rights, section 9 saves certain rights and the two must therefore be read together to determine the extent to which rights in wells have been extinguished or saved by the Act. IT is, relevant, therefore to have a look at section 9 also which is in these terms :