UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE General Manager, South Eastern Railways, has filed these writ applications, inter alia, challenging the propriety and/or otherwise of the Irrigation Department of the State of Orissa in raising the demands of water rate under the provisions of the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959 and the Orissa Irrigation Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act and the Rules' respectively) for lifting water from the 'Hirakud Reservoir' at Jharsuguda for different purposes commencing from 1951. The facts and the point of law being identical in all the writ applications and the only dispute being the source fromwhich the water is used by the petitioner and the quantity of such use, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BEREFT of all unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the present dispute, are as follows Admittedly, the South Eastern Railway is lifting water by using three pump sets in different places at Jharsuguda. According to the provisions of the 1959 Act, the Hirakud Reservoir squarely comes under the definition of the 'irrigation 'work' as defined under Section4, (9) (a) of the 1959 Act which is quoted below :

(3.) TO effectually adjudicate the dispute, a spot visit was conducted by the Sub Collector, Jharsuguda and the Junior Engineer, P, H. D., Sadar, Jharsuguda on May 13, 1993. The memorandum of the spot visit is annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application. During the spot visit it was found that, in fact, the South Eastern Railways has installed three electrical pump sets, one of 200 HP and the two numbers of 170 HP and the pumps were running one after the other. On a tentative calculation, the authorities arrived at a conclusion that the total average of water drawn comes to about 8 lakh/10 lakh gallons approximately. On the basis of the aforesaid spot enquiry report and other documents, the Sub Collector, Jharsuguda was not satisfied with the demand orders issued by the Irrigation officer in Irrigation Case No. 3 of 1988 and remanded the case to the Tahasildar for fresh calculation. However, in the concluding paragraph, the Sub Collector observed as follows ;