JUDGMENT : D.G. Karia, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Jetput Nagar Palika has prayed for appropriate writ restraining the respondents from demanding any amount by way of water charges from the petitioner Municipality for the supply of water from Bhadar Dam. 2. The petitioner municipality is constituted under the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963. It is the case of the petitioner municipality that Jetput Municipality had come into existence in the year 1950. The municipality used to supply water to the people of Jetput from the well at Harve Ghat in Bhadar river. Said water supply scheme was made applicable to the Jetput Municipality in the year 1955-56 for supplying water to the residents of Jetput town. Jetput town is situated on the bank of river Bhadar and people of Jetput used to get water from the river Bhadar before the implementation of the aforesaid water supply scheme. 3. It is not in dispute that construction of Bhadar Dam was taken up in the year 1956 and was completed in the year 1964. The grievance of the petitioner municipality is that on account of the construction of Bhadar Dam, the wells and the infiltration gallery became dry and useless for the purpose of taking water from the said wells. The Executive Engineer, Rajkot Irrigation Division has denied the said allegation of the petitioner-municipality by filing affidavit in reply. 4. Mr. H. L. Patel L.A. for the petitioner municipality submitted that the case of the petitioner municipality is covered by the judgment rendered in Spl. C.A. No. 641 of 1977 by this Court (Coram : S.H. Sheth-J) (as he then was). Said petition was filed by Veraval Patan Joint Municipality which sought adequate supply of water from Hiren river for meeting the needs of the people of Veraval and prayed for appropriate writ for supply of water in the same terms and conditions on which they were enjoying water facilities before the State Government under took the construction of Umrethi Dam (Hiren 2). Mr. Mr. Patel having placed reliance upon the finding of the said judgment in SCA No. 641 of 1977 and urged that the petition of the petitioner requires to be allowed on the same terms as the action of the Government in charging for supply of water from Bhadar dam to Jetput town is illegal and arbitrary. According to Mr Patel, on account of the construction of the dam on river Bhadar, the water supply could not reach Jetpur Town and facilities of water supply to Jetpur town were curtailed. The two wells constructed by the aforesaid municipality also went dry due to the construction of the dam on Bhadar river. The respondents are therefore, not entitled, Mr. Patel submits, to charge from the petitioner municipality as source of water was not available due to the construction of the dam. Thus charging by the respondents for supply of water is challenged as being discriminatory and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The case of Veraval-Patan Municipality in its aforesaid petition was that as a result of construction of Umethi Dam, there was shortage of water in its water works from January 1974 as Hiren river had become dry. The municipality therefore, exchanged correspondence with the State Government in this behalf. On April 24, 1977 the Government agreed to supply water to the Municipality on payment at a rate to be fixed by the Government. The Municipality claimed that the people of Patan-Veraval cannot be deprived of the water supply from Hiren river and no payment or charge can be recovered in respect of water supply. The contention that found favour with the learned Single Judge was that the Government had no right to interfere with the right of the Municipality to draw water which was essential for the life of the people of Veraval and that such right was enjoyed by the people since 1953 free from any payment. The learned single Judge further held that the river and its water were public property. 6. Mr. Patel, L. A. for the petitioner-Municipality in seeking the support from the judgment in favour of Veraval Municipality has riot made it clear if the claim of the petitioner-Municipality is based on a right by way of easement or as a riparian right. There is no such plea raised in the petition either. 6. Mr. Patel, L. A. for the petitioner-Municipality in seeking the support from the judgment in favour of Veraval Municipality has riot made it clear if the claim of the petitioner-Municipality is based on a right by way of easement or as a riparian right. There is no such plea raised in the petition either. No distinction between easement right and a riparian right was noticed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the claim of Veraval Municipality. If the right is claimed as an easement right, it would involve disputed questions of facts and the petitioner Municipality could substantiate or settle such right by bringing a civil suit. Therefore, Mr. Patel submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner-Municipality would be as a riparian owner only. What then would follow would be the question as to what is the nature and extent of riparian right ? 7. On referring to Halsbury's Law of England and Corpus Juris Secundum, what emerges therefrom is that though certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property, the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel, or percolating from the soil, is not, at Common Law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to any one. Flowing water is only public juris in the sense that it is public or common to all who have a right of access to it from the owner of the land, abutting on water, called a 'riparian owner' is entitled ex jure natural to access and refers from that water, whether it is tidal or non-tidal river, a lake or a sea where it is in contact with his frontage, provided his land is in actual daily contact with the water. At common Law, the owner of said land has a right to have a continuous supply of water. This right is a natural right jure natural. It is an incident arising by law from the ownership of such plot of land over or through which water passes. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner-Municipality, I am afraid cannot claim such riparian right so as to distribute or supply water to the people of Jetpur town, from Bhadar river. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get water free of charge merely on the basis the judgment Spl. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner-Municipality, I am afraid cannot claim such riparian right so as to distribute or supply water to the people of Jetpur town, from Bhadar river. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get water free of charge merely on the basis the judgment Spl. C. A. No. 641 of 1977 which now no longer is a good law, as noticed hereinafter. 8. The judgment rendered in Spl. C. A. No. 641 of 1977 is no longer a good law, as the same has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: G. T. Nanavti-J (as then he was) and K. J. Vaidya, J) in L. P. A. No. 76 of 1978. While allowing the said L. P. A. and in quashing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench observed as follows : "The basis on which the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and granted the relief is that since 1935 people of Veraval have been enjoying the water supply from river Hiren and that remained un-interfered with for a period of 42 years. The question which the learned Single Judge posed for consideration was "whether the State can deprive the people of their water supply which they have been enjoying since 1935?" Even after accepting that flowing water of a river belongs to the State, the learned Single Judge observed that would mean that it belongs to the people as the State is a representative of the people. The learned Single Judge has then observed that, " if the people were making a new demand on the State to meet which the State would be required to incur expenditure, certainly the people can be subjected to payment so as to reimburse the expenditure. That is not the situation in the instant case. The learned Single Judge has then observed that, " if the people were making a new demand on the State to meet which the State would be required to incur expenditure, certainly the people can be subjected to payment so as to reimburse the expenditure. That is not the situation in the instant case. In the instant case the people of Veraval as an organised community of people, had been enjoying water supply from Hiren river for the last 42 years and as such they cannot be deprived of it by the State under the guise of claiming a legal right as sovereign and the people cannot be called upon to pay for the water for which they did not at all pay during the early years "Thus, the whole discussion in the judgment and the reasons given by the learned single Judge clearly indicate that the learned Single Judge examined the claim made by the petitioner, as if it was a claim based on easement. We do not find any discussion regarding the nature and extent of riparian right. It would, therefore, mean that the learned Single Judge failed to notice the true basis of the petition, the claim made by the petitioner and the distinction between a riparian right and an easement right." 9. Bombay Irrigation Act 1879 was enacted to make provision for the construction, maintenance and regulation of canals, for the supply of water therefrom and for levy of rates for water so supplied. Section 44, of the said Act provides determination of a rate of supply of canal water. Such rates shall be leviable for canal water supplied for the purpose of irrigation or any other purpose as determined by the State Government. In view of this clear provision the respondent Government is empowered to levy and charge the petitioner-municipality for supply of water from Bhadar dam. 10. Mr. Nigam Shukla, L. A. G. P. for the respondent pointed out that the facts as regards the supply of water from Bhadar dam to petitioner-municipality are quite different than that of the facts of the aforesaid Spl. C.A. No. 641 of 1977. The construction of Bhadar dam was completed in the year 1964 and the water supply scheme for Jetpur Municipality was also completed in the year 1964. C.A. No. 641 of 1977. The construction of Bhadar dam was completed in the year 1964 and the water supply scheme for Jetpur Municipality was also completed in the year 1964. It is evident from the reply affidavit that the petitioner-Municipality had constructed two wells with infiltration gallery for water supply scheme to draw sub soil water from Bhadar river bed. By storing of water in Bhadar dam, the river in down stream of the dam is being charged by seepage of water through the dam and hence it would be useful in summer season where there is no live flow of water in river Bhadar in up stream of Bhadar dam circumstances, it cannot be said that water could not reach Jetput town on account of the construction of said Bhadar dam. Apart from this, facts of both the petitions are different. The judgment, on the basis of which the petition of Veraval Patan Joint Municipality was allowed does not hold good any longer in view of the fact that said judgment has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court. 11. In view of the aforesaid premises, I see no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier stands vacated. Petition dismissed.