Back
2004 Supreme(Kar) 351
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Mohan Shantanagoudar
G.N.NARAYANA - Appellant
Versus
K.SHESHAGIRIYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS - Respondent
CRP 4236 Of 2001
Decided On : 06/14/2004
Advocates Appeared :
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
The court's decision highlighted the limitations of the Irrigation Officer in determining easementary rights and granting permanent injunctions under the provisions of the Karnataka Irrigation Act.
Headnote:
Section 69(5) - Easementary Rights - The court held that the suit was not barred under Section 69(5) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act, as the plaintiffs claimed a right of easement by prescription to conduct water from the stream to their wet lands through a specific channel, and sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from obstructing the flow of water in the channel.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming a right of easement by prescription to conduct water from the stream to their wet lands through a specific channel, and sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from obstructing the flow of water in the channel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit could not be decided by the Irrigation Officer under the provisions of the Irrigation Act, as the officer could not determine easementary rights or grant permanent injunctions. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred under Section 69(5) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the suit was not barred under Section 69(5) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act, as the claims made by the plaintiffs were related to easementary rights and permanent injunction, which could not be decided by the Irrigation Officer.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13. 9. 2001 passed by the Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Koppa, in O. S. No. 30/1995 on issue No. 4. By the impugned order, the Court below has held that the suit is not barred under Section 69 (5) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the adjoining land owners and the plaintiffs are drawing water continuously from the channel since more than 100 years. As the defendants blocked the said water passage, the suit in O. S. No. 30/1995 is filed for the following reliefs: " a) A declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired a right of easement by prescription to conduct water from the stream to their wet lands described in plaint schedule lands A to C through the channel 'opqr' existing on the western side of the plaint schedule 'd' land. b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his workmen and agents from closing the channel 'opqr' or in any manner obstructing the flow of water in the said channel. "
( 2 ) LOOKING to the averments made in the plaint, as well as, the reliefs claimed, the same cannot be decided by the Irrigation Officer under the provisions of Irrigation Act. The Irrigation Officer cannot determine the easementary rights of the parties and also cannot grant permanent injunction. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. Petition is therefore dismissed.
