Supreme Court of India
MADAN LAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. on 27 August 2019
226
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
A
MADAN LAL
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6975 of 2019)
BAUGUST 27, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954: s.53 – Disputewith regard to water and its distribution to the fields of contestingCparties – Appellant approached the Authorities under the 1954 Actbut was unsuccessful – He filed suit before the trial court challengingthe order of Appellate Authority which was also dismissed – Firstappellate court allowed the appeal of appellant which was, however,set aside by High Court on the ground that the civil court could notDentertain or deal with such disputes – On appeal, held: Unders.53, if there is a difference between two or more persons withregard to rights and liabilities in respect of the use, construction ormaintenance of a water courses, then the dispute has to be firstreferred to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, who enquires thematter and pass an order – He can also transfer the matter to theECollector who may enquire into the matter and dispose it of – Theappeal against the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer lies tothe Superintending Irrigation Officer – s.53 (2) is absolutely clearthat the order passed by the Authorities under the Act would befinal for any crop sown or growing when such order is made andFshall remain in force until set aside by the decree of a Civil Court –This clearly implies that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertainand decide such a dispute – The only caveat is that the Civil Courtshall not pass any order in respect of crops sown or growing in theland at the time of passing of the order – High Court fell in errorGwhile holding that the Civil Court could not have set aside the suit– Judgment of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to theHigh Court to decide the dispute on merits – Water disputes –Jurisdiction of civil court.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6975of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2015 of the HighCourt of Judicature of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. CivilSecond Appeal No.317 of 2008.
Pushpinder Singh, Amrit Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Advs.for the Appellant.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Satyendra Kumar, Shailja NandaMishra, Harsha Vinoy, Milind Kumar, Sunil Kr. Sharma, Niraj Sharma,Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated12.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil SecondAppeal No. 317 of 2008.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
4. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to waterand how it is to be given to the field of contesting parties. This disputewas taken to the Authorities under the Rajasthan Irrigation and DrainageAct, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant lost before the saidAuthority.
5. The appellant, thereafter, filed a suit before the Trial Courtchallenging the order of the Appellate Authority which was dismissed.Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellant filed an appealbefore the First Appellate Court, which was allowed. The privaterespondents filed a Second Appeal in the High Court and the High Courtset aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and upheld thejudgment of the Trial Court holding that the Civil Court could not entertainor deal such disputes.
6. The High Court did not take into consideration Section 53 ofthe Act which reads as follows:- “53. Settlement of reference as to mutual rights and liabilities ofpersons interested in water course.-(1) Whenever a differencearises between two or more persons in regard to their mutualrights or liabilities in respect of the use, construction or maintenance A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aof a water course, any such person may apply in writing to theDivisional Irrigation Officer stating the matter in dispute; and suchofficer shall thereupon give notice to the other persons interestedthat, on a day to be named in such notice, he will proceed toenquire into the said matter and, after such enquiry, he shall passhis order thereon unless he transfers (as he is hereby empoweredBto do) the matter to the Collector who shall thereupon enquire intoand pass his order on the said matter.
(2) Such order shall be final as to the use or distribution of waterfor any crop sown or growing at the time when such order ismade and shall thereafter remain in force until set aside by theCdecree in a Civil Court.”
7. A bare perusal of Section 53 shows that if there is a differencebetween two or more persons with regard to rights and liabilities in respectof the use, construction or maintenance of a water courses, then thedispute has to be first referred to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, whoDafter giving notice shall enquire the matter and pass an order. He canalso transfer the matter to the Collector who may enquire into the matterand dispose it of. The appeal against the order of the Divisional IrrigationOfficer lies to the Superintending Irrigation Officer.
8. Section 53 (2) is absolutely clear that the order passed by the EAuthorities under the Act would be final for any crop sown or growingwhen such order is made and shall remain in force until set aside by thedecree of a Civil Court. This clearly implies that the Civil Court hasjurisdiction to entertain and decide such a dispute. The only caveat isthat the Civil Court shall not pass any order in respect of crops sown or growing in the land at the time of passing of the order.F
9. The High Court fell in error while holding that the Civil Courtcould not have set aside the suit. On this ground, we feel that the judgmentof the High Court requires to be set aside. We order accordingly andremand the matter to the High Court to decide the dispute on merits. Wefurther direct that the Second Appeal shall be treated to have been filedGin the year 2008 and shall be given priority accordingly.
10. The civil appeal is allowed.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.