Yallappa Balappa Bandiwada vs Deputy Commissioner

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the permanent Lok Adalat having declined to address his grievance in terms of Section 22A(b)(i)(iv) and 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for brevity).

It is the petitioner''s case that he is the owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 309 and 268/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and 2 acres 30 guntas of Navalur village, Dharwad taluk. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the Department of Irrigation, is said to have constructed an irrigation canal abutting the land of the petitioner and through the said canal, tank water, drainage water and rain water was meant to flow.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that excess water being discharged stagnates on the petitioner''s land, and therefore, he has not been able to grow crops for several seasons. The irrigation canal is only up to the land of the petitioner and as such water flowing through stagnates in the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has made a representation to avoid the flow of canal water by the side of his land. But since there was inaction on the part of the authorities, in respondent No. 2 namely, the Assistant Executive Engineer preventing the canal water 10 stagnate in the lands of the petitioner on account of improper construction of the gutter which allows the water to stagnate in his land, the petitioner was before the Lok Adalat.

The respondents had entered appearance through the Government Pleader and it was pointed out that the land of the petitioner was at a lower level from the tank and as such naturally the water stagnates in the land during the rainy season, but notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was indeed growing crops. It was the case of respondents that they had in fact constructed a separate canal to avoid any such stagnation and to permit flow of the tank, sewage and rain water. But the riparian land owners while taking water to their lands from the irrigation canal fail to close the outlet and thereby the water freely flows into the lands of the petitioner, and therefore, it is a dispute primarily between the petitioner and such riparian land owners.

On receiving the representation the Adalat is said to have appointed a Court Commissioner to verify the state of affairs on the spot and such a report having been placed before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat after a close examination of the situation whereby a report and sketch of the Court Commissioner was studied at length and it is found that there is a water tank on the extreme western side and that towards the east there is 30 feet wide road and under that road through a gate valve the excess water is drained out towards east joining a municipal gutter in which the sewage water from Gandhi Nagar, K.M.F. and other areas passes and flows from north to south. That there are 18 land owners towards south of that canal and the water canal which is constructed for the benefit of all the 18 land owners as well as the petitioner. Since it is found that the 18 land owners, who are on a higher level than the petitioner''s land allow the water to flow freely into the lands of the petitioner which stagnates there, the Lok Adalat has found that the grievance of the petitioner was against the said 18 land owners, who do not follow a discipline in preventing the water to flow continuously and thereby allowing the water to enter the field of the petitioner and which stagnates there and hence the Lok Adalath has stayed its hand.

It is found that the grievance of the petitioner would not fall within the definition of ''Public Utility Service'' as defined in Section 22A(b)(iii) and since the grievance of the petitioner is against the land owners the Lok Adalat would not be in a position to exercise conciliatory or adjudicatory the powers vested under Section 22C of the Act and has accordingly held that the rejection of the petitioner''s petition would not preclude him from approaching any other appropriate Forum for reliefs which the petitioner may be entitled to and has accordingly disposed of the same. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the finding of the Adalat to the effect that the main grievance of the petitioner is against 18 land owners and not necessarily against the public authorities is concerned, even if the public authorities are to blame to a certain extent the involvement of the land owners or their acts of negligence cannot be entirely ruled out. In any event it would result in disputed questions of fact being addressed with reference to the third parties who may not have agreed to refer the matter to the Lok Adalath and the Lok Adalat would therefore not be in a position to enter upon any conciliatory or adjudicatory process and has accordingly dismissed the petition. There is no fault to be found with the said order. The petitioner, however, is left to his remedies in seeking such reliefs as he may be entitled to, including damages against the State, if he could establish a case as sought to be projected. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.