JUDGMENT 1. - Plaintiff Madho-prasad has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur on 8.9.1979 dismissing the suit for the recovery of Rs. 37,200/-. 2. The plaintiffs case was that he had offered to undertake two construction works of Bhatasia Irrigation Project Parts A and C in Parbatsar Tehsil, Nagpur District in the year 1972 and his tender was accepted by the defendant Irrigation Department. It was averred that he started work of part A in June, 1972 and of part C in August, 1972 and completed them on 24.2.1974 and the defendant made some payments for the work. It was further averred that despite the various representations made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not make payment for the cost of water which he had to incur in obtaining water for the construction of the works. It was stated that the officers of the Irrigation Department had even recommended his case. According to the averments in the plaint the plaintiff had spent Rs. 12,750/- for water. It was then averred that the measurement were not properly taken by the Department and they have measured the works on computation basis and have unauthorisedly recovered FIs. 11,000/- from the IVth bill of Bisalpur work paid in November, 1973. The amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In the joint written statement the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs tender was accepted for parts A and C of the project and that he had completed the works. It was, however, denied that the defendants were liable to pay the cost of water as according to them it was not agreed upon by the parties. Regarding the measurements it was stated that the final measurements of the work was correctly recorded in the Measurement Book and this measurement was done by trapeozatial method which is correct and standard method of measurement of such type of work and, therefore, the defendants were well within their right to recover Rs. 11,000/- from the plaintiff. In rejoinder the plaintiff reiterated his claim for Rs. 37,200/-. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following seven issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff executed two works at Bhatia Irrigation Project Parts A & C on P.W.A. basis as mentioned in the plaint 7(p). 2. Whether the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 11,000/- from the plaintiff. In rejoinder the plaintiff reiterated his claim for Rs. 37,200/-. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following seven issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff executed two works at Bhatia Irrigation Project Parts A & C on P.W.A. basis as mentioned in the plaint 7(p). 2. Whether the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 12,750/08 as cost of water, which the plaintiff incurred in connection with the construction of the above referred two works from the defendants 7(p). 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.4,729/59 say FIs.4,730/ - as detailed in paras No. 10(a)(b)(c)(d) and 11 to 22 of plaint (p). 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 11,000/- deducted as illegal and unauthorised recoveries from IV running bill of Bisalpur 9-13 August, 1973 paid in Nov. l73 as detailed in paras No. 10(a)(b)(c)(d) and 11 to 28 to the plaint 7(p). 5. Whether the plaintiff in entitled to recover FIs. 8,686/40 as interest from the defendants. 12% from 1.4.1973 to 5.10.1975 and he is further entitled and pendortali to and future interest as claimed in the plaint 7(p). 6. Whether the plaintiff in entitled to recover Rs. 33/60 as notice expenses form the defendants 7(p). 7. Relief. 4. In the oral evidence plaintiff gave his statement. In rebuttal defendants examined B.L. Chouhan D.W.1 and Nirmal Bhandari D.W.2. The learned Additional District Judge held under Issue No. 1 that the plaintiff had executed two works as mentioned in the plaint. Under Issue No. 2 it was held that plaintiff was not entitled to Rs. 12,750/- as cost of after because in agreement the defendant had not agreed to pay for the cost of water. Under issues Nos. 3 and 4 it was found that the Department had taken measurement as per the standard method and it could not be found that the measurements were incorrect. Eventually the court dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Kappor, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments mainly for the claim of water charges. He contended that though it was not recorded in the agreement that the plaintiff would get cost of water yet as the plaintiff had to spent the amount to get water, he was entitled to reimbursement of the same from the defendants on the basis of the recommendations made by the officers of the Irrigation Department. He contended that though it was not recorded in the agreement that the plaintiff would get cost of water yet as the plaintiff had to spent the amount to get water, he was entitled to reimbursement of the same from the defendants on the basis of the recommendations made by the officers of the Irrigation Department. He further submitted that even otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of the water under Section 70 of the Contract Act. In this connection he has referred to the cases of State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal, AIR 1962 SC 779 and Dominion of India v. Pretty Kumar Ghosh & Anr., AIR 1958 Pat. 203 . 6. Mr. Bhansali, on the other hand, contended that when there was no contract between the parties for paying the cost of water by the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to any sum, irrespective of the recommendations made by the officers of the Irrigation Department. He tried to distinguish the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. It is now admitted position of the parties that as per the terms of the contract, the plaintiff is not entitled to the cost of water. The plaintiff had agreed to execute the work by piece work in accordance with the conditions recorded in Schedule G. Schedule G provides for the cost of transportation of water beyond one mile. However, it does not say that cost of water shall also be paid. It is relevant to state that in the B.S.R. there is mention where payment of water would be made. As per the note recorded below items 27, 28 and 29 the cost of water was payable as per the prevailing rates only in the desert area and the desert area has been defined as the districts of Barmer, Jaisalmer and Sanchore Tehsil of Jalore District. The work in question was in Nagaur district which was not a part of the desert area and, therefore these items which were referred to at the time of arguments do not entitle the plaintiff the cost of water. 8. The terms of the tender notice indicate that the contractor could see the site before submission of the tender. The work in question was in Nagaur district which was not a part of the desert area and, therefore these items which were referred to at the time of arguments do not entitle the plaintiff the cost of water. 8. The terms of the tender notice indicate that the contractor could see the site before submission of the tender. It is presumed that when the plaintiff submitted his tender he had visited the site and one to know that he would be required to spend money to get water. That being so, on the grounds that the area was famine hit and free water as not available, the plaintiff cannot get a decree for the amount spent by him. 9. It is not of much consequence that ' when the work was in progress, the officers of the Department had recommended the ' case of the plaintiff for payment of water, Letter Ex. 18 was written by Nirmal Bhandari, AEN to his XEN, stating therein that there is no rate of the B.S.R. to pay the cost of water to the contractor, but the contractor has to pay the cost of water since the area is affected by drought. It might be the opinion to the AEN that the plaintiff should be paid the cost of water because of drought condition but this does not give a right to the plaintiff to get cost of water. The plaintiff had given the tender keeping his eyes open that the area was drought hit. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that because there was drought and there was scarcity of water, the plaintiff should be paid water charges. It appears that in order to get the work completed within time the AEN and the XEN wrote such letter but in my opinion that does not give any right to the plaintiff to get the cost of water and the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the case of the plaintiff. 10. Now it to be considered if the plaintiff is entitled to cost of water under Section 70 of the Contract Act. In my opinion, in this case Section 70 of the Contract Act cannot be invoked. It is not a case where the plaintiff was not aware of the existence of the particular situation at the site. 10. Now it to be considered if the plaintiff is entitled to cost of water under Section 70 of the Contract Act. In my opinion, in this case Section 70 of the Contract Act cannot be invoked. It is not a case where the plaintiff was not aware of the existence of the particular situation at the site. It is also not a case where officers of the department though not authorised to contract, had entered into contract for payment of water with the plaintiff. There was also no confusion as to the terms of the contract. In the G Schedule it was specifically mentioned that transportation charges for water were to be paid and cost of water was payable only in desert districts. 11. In the case of State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondial (supra) the facts were that the work was done without a valid contract and the officer who had asked the plaintiff to do work was not authorised to enter into contract and the contract was not executed in the manner prescribed by Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act. In these circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court held that the work was done for the benefit of the Government and use and enjoyment and is otherwise legitimate and proper, Section 70 could be pressed into service for a claim of compensation. In the instant case, the contract entered into between the parties is a written contract and authorised persons had entered into the contract. 12. In the case before the Patna High Court also the facts were that the officer was not authorised to enter into an agreement on behalf of Dominion of India yet it was proved that the plaintiff had supplied to the Military Department in pursuance of oral agreement. It is in these circumstances that the High Court held that under Section 70 of the Contract Act, the plaintiff could get compensation. 13. Thus, both the cases are distinguishable and in my opinion, the learned Addl. District Judge has not erred in deciding issue No. 2 against the plaintiff. 14. Coming to the point of measurement, it may be stated that the measurements have been taken as per the standard method. The defendants evidence, that in such works the proper and standard method of measurements is the trapeozatial method, has not been rebutted by the plaintiff. District Judge has not erred in deciding issue No. 2 against the plaintiff. 14. Coming to the point of measurement, it may be stated that the measurements have been taken as per the standard method. The defendants evidence, that in such works the proper and standard method of measurements is the trapeozatial method, has not been rebutted by the plaintiff. In the running bills the measurement is recorded provisionally. The Department was perfectly justified in taking accurate measurement by the standard method at the time of preparing the final bill. No fault can be found on the part of the defendant when measurement was taken on computation basis. Findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 3 and 4 are upheld. 15. No other point was pressed before me. 16. Consequently, this appeal is devoid of merit which is hereby dismissed with noAppeal dismissed. *******