KADAR Vs. RAHIM BAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the Additional Collector, Bhilwara dated 4. 10. 52. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant approached the Tehsildar Mandalgarh with a request u/s. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 that the non-applicant was not allowing him to take water from well No. 1618 to which he was entitled in accordance with the entries in the revenue records. It was Khasra No. 1634 that was to be so irrigated. The learned Tehsildar Mandalgarh, after holding a local enquiry and taking evidence, accepted the application. But the learned Additional Collector, Bhilwara reversed the same only on the ground that it had not been proved that water was being taken by the applicant from the well No. 1618 after Smt. 2005, and hence this revision.

(2.) THE validity of the order of the lower appellate court has been challenged on the ground that it was not a case of easement and it was not necessary that a continuous user of the well should have been proved by the applicant. This contention is very well founded. Sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act lays down - "in the event of a dispute arising to the. . . . . . . . . the course or source by which he may avail himself of water, to which he is entitled from the tank, well or other source, the Tehsildar, may on application, after local enquiry, decide the matter with reference to the previous custom in each case and with due regard to the convenience of all concerned