MADAN LALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

226                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    12 S.C.R. 226              [2019] 12 S.C.R.


A                                MADAN LAL
                                        v.
                    THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 6975 of 2019)
B
                               AUGUST 27, 2019
            [DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
             Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954: s.53 – Dispute
      with regard to water and its distribution to the fields of contesting
C     parties – Appellant approached the Authorities under the 1954 Act
      but was unsuccessful – He filed suit before the trial court challenging
      the order of Appellate Authority which was also dismissed – First
      appellate court allowed the appeal of appellant which was, however,
      set aside by High Court on the ground that the civil court could not
D     entertain or deal with such disputes – On appeal, held: Under
      s.53, if there is a difference between two or more persons with
      regard to rights and liabilities in respect of the use, construction or
      maintenance of a water courses, then the dispute has to be first
      referred to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, who enquires the
      matter and pass an order – He can also transfer the matter to the
E
      Collector who may enquire into the matter and dispose it of – The
      appeal against the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer lies to
      the Superintending Irrigation Officer – s.53 (2) is absolutely clear
      that the order passed by the Authorities under the Act would be
      final for any crop sown or growing when such order is made and
F     shall remain in force until set aside by the decree of a Civil Court –
      This clearly implies that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain
      and decide such a dispute – The only caveat is that 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 – High Court fell in error
G     while holding that the Civil Court could not have set aside the suit
      – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to the
      High Court to decide the dispute on merits – Water disputes –
      Jurisdiction of civil court.


H
                                       226
     MADAN LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.                                  227


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6975                        A
of 2019
      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2015 of the High
Court of Judicature of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil
Second Appeal No.317 of 2008.
        Pushpinder Singh, Amrit Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Advs.               B
for the Appellant.
      Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda
Mishra, Harsha Vinoy, Milind Kumar, Sunil Kr. Sharma, Niraj Sharma,
Advs. for the Respondents.
      The following Order of the Court was passed :                              C
                               ORDER
      1. Leave granted.
      2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
12.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Second            D
Appeal No. 317 of 2008.
      3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
      4. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to water
and how it is to be given to the field of contesting parties. This dispute
was taken to the Authorities under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage         E
Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant lost before the said
Authority.
       5. The appellant, thereafter, filed a suit before the Trial Court
challenging the order of the Appellate Authority which was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal
before the First Appellate Court, which was allowed. The private                 F
respondents filed a Second Appeal in the High Court and the High Court
set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and upheld the
judgment of the Trial Court holding that the Civil Court could not entertain
or deal such disputes.
      6. The High Court did not take into consideration Section 53 of            G
the Act which reads as follows:-
      “53. Settlement of reference as to mutual rights and liabilities of
      persons interested in water course.-(1) Whenever a difference
      arises between two or more persons in regard to their mutual
      rights or liabilities in respect of the use, construction or maintenance
                                                                                 H
228              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 12 S.C.R.


A            of a water course, any such person may apply in writing to the
             Divisional Irrigation Officer stating the matter in dispute; and such
             officer shall thereupon give notice to the other persons interested
             that, on a day to be named in such notice, he will proceed to
             enquire into the said matter and, after such enquiry, he shall pass
             his order thereon unless he transfers (as he is hereby empowered
B            to do) the matter to the Collector who shall thereupon enquire into
             and pass his order on the said matter.
             (2) Such order shall be final as to the use or distribution of water
             for any crop sown or growing at the time when such order is
             made and shall thereafter remain in force until set aside by the
C            decree in a Civil Court.”
             7. A bare perusal of Section 53 shows that if there is a difference
      between two or more persons with regard to rights and liabilities in respect
      of the use, construction or maintenance of a water courses, then the
      dispute has to be first referred to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, who
D     after giving notice shall enquire the matter and pass an order. He can
      also transfer the matter to the Collector who may enquire into the matter
      and dispose it of. The appeal against the order of the Divisional Irrigation
      Officer lies to the Superintending Irrigation Officer.
             8. Section 53 (2) is absolutely clear that the order passed by the
E     Authorities under the Act would be final for any crop sown or growing
      when such order is made and shall remain in force until set aside by the
      decree of a Civil Court. This clearly implies that the Civil Court has
      jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a dispute. The only caveat is
      that 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 Court
      could not have set aside the suit. On this ground, we feel that the judgment
      of the High Court requires to be set aside. We order accordingly and
      remand the matter to the High Court to decide the dispute on merits. We
      further direct that the Second Appeal shall be treated to have been filed
G     in the year 2008 and shall be given priority accordingly.
             10. The civil appeal is allowed.
             11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.


H     Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal allowed.