Malaharrao vs State of Karnataka and Others

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-The petitioner feels aggrieved by the communication addressed to the Engineer in-Charge of Bonala Tank near Peta Ammapura Village, Surapura Taluk, Gulbarga District, by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Bangalore. That communication is no more than a copy of the letter dated 30-6-1989 issued by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Bangalore, to the Chief Engineer. By the said letter, the Chief Engineer is required to take steps to to lower the height of the waste weir of the tank in question by 0.93 metre so that an extent of 315 acres of patta land which has been submerged would be released for cultivation and the owners of those lands will be able to raise rabbi crops.

Now an assertion is made by the petitioner that the land owners of the command area of the tank will not be able to get the same quantity of water for the purpose of growing irii-gated crops as a result of the lowering the waste weir as the storage capacity of the tank gets reduced. Therefore, he seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the communication at Annexure-A in public interest.

Today the matter comming up for preliminary hearing, after certain directions were given on the last date of hearing, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not personally aggrieved by the communication, but in public interest he is prosecuting this petition.

There is no material before this Court as to the extend of the command area under the tank (Achkut); nor is there any material placed as to the capacity of the tank to hold water during and after monsoon. In other words, the Court has to proceed only on the assertion of the petitioner that there will be insufficient watar in the Tank as a result of lowering of the waste weir. It cannot be doubted that the water level and the storage capacity of the tank will be reduced by lowering the weir. But the question is whether the land owners in the achkut area are affected and whether the land owners of the achkut area only constitute ''public'' in thearea surrounding the tank. The contents of the communication at Annexure-A clearly indicate that certain extent of area has been submerged and such area will be released for non-irrigated crop. The owners of those lands also constitute ''public''. If something is done for the benefit of the public even if it has caused some hardship to another section, this Court has to weigh the extent of public interest suffered and which section will suffer more before this Court embarks upon to grant relief to the aggrieved persons. When there is no material by which the grievance of the land owners of the command area can be measured and because the release of 315 acres of land to the owners for cultivation of non-irrigated crop, this Court must come to conclusion that whatever has been suggested by the Government has been done after considering the public interest of both the land owners of the upper region of the tank and those who come under the command area.

The Court may add that in this matter the Government which is put in-charge of maintenance of the water resources is the best judge to hold as to what constitutes public interest and not the Court unless sufficient material is placed to demonstrate the manner in which public interest has suffered.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly rejected.

Writ petition rejected.