JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The General-Manager, South-Eastern Railways, has filed these writ applications, inter alia, challenging the propriety and/or otherwise of the Irrigation Department of the State of Orissa in raising the demands of water rate under the provisions of the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959 and the Orissa Irrigation Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act and the Rules' respectively) for lifting water from the "Hirakud Reservoir" at Jharsuguda for different purposes commencing from 1951. The facts and the point of law being identical in all the writ applications and the only dispute being the source from which the water is used by the petitioner and the quantity of such use, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the present dispute, are as follows Admittedly, the South-Eastern Railway is lifting water by using three pump sets in different places at Jharsuguda. According to the provisions of the 1959 Act, the Hirakud Reservoir squarely comes under the definition of the "irrigation "work" as defined under Section4, (9) (a) of the 1959 Act which is quoted below : "(9) Irrigation Work, Irrigation work' included- (a) all reservoirs, tanks, anicuts, dams, weirs, canals, barages, channel, pipes, wells, tube-wells and artesians wells constructed, maintained or controlled wholly or mainly by the State Government or by any Panchayat Samiti constituted under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959 (Orissa Act 7 of 1960) on behalf of such Government for the supply of storage of water : " Section 21(2) of the 1959 Act also squarely stipulates that supply of water for the purpose otherwise than irrigation is also covered by the statute and levy of water rate and/or cess for such supply is permissible under the Act. In view of the fact that the South-Eastern Railway lifts water at Jharsuguda by using power pumps and no water rate or cess was paid, demands for different years were issued for realisation of water charges in consonance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act by initiating irrigation cases. 3. O. J. C. No. 2139 of 1994 corresponds to Misc. Irrigation Case No. 3 of 1988 (for the period 1-6-1961 to 9-3-1982 i. e. total 8582 days). O.J.C. No. 2271 of 1994 corresponds to Misc. 3. O. J. C. No. 2139 of 1994 corresponds to Misc. Irrigation Case No. 3 of 1988 (for the period 1-6-1961 to 9-3-1982 i. e. total 8582 days). O.J.C. No. 2271 of 1994 corresponds to Misc. Irrigation Case No. 8 of 1993 (for the period from 1988-89 to 1993-94 @ of Rs. 20/- per one lakh gallon, for ninenty lakh gallons), OJ.C. No. 3303 of 1996 corresponds to Misc. Irrigation Case No, 1 of 1995 (for the period from 1988-89 to 1993-94,(r) Rs. 10/- per one lakh gallon, for ninety lakh gallons) and OJ.C. No. 5885 of 1998 relating to Misc. Irrigation Case No. 6 of 1997 (for the period from 1988-89 to 1993-94, @ Rs. 20/- per one lakh gallon, for ninety lakh gallon) were filed challenging the order of demand and the order of the appellate rauthotity passed in Irrigation Appeal No. 1 of 1998. After initiation of the aforesaid proceedings, show-cause notices were issued to the South-Eastern Railways in consonance with the provisions of the 1959 Act, calling upon the Railway authorities to show-cause as to why water rate along with penalties will not be recovered under the Act vide Annexure-1. Followed by the aforesaid show-cause notices, demands were issued by the opposite parties directing the South-Eastern Rail-ways-petitioner to pay water rate for the water used from the Hirakud Reservoir at Jharsuguda for the period coveted under the respective notice (Annexure-2). After receiving the notice the petitioner-Railways filed appeal before opposite party No. 4, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda, who is the appellate authority under the Irrigation Act, inter alia, taking the plea that the intake point of water where the pumps are installed is not within the Hirakud Reservoir and thus, the water rate levied is without jurisdiction. It is further specifically averred that water is drawn from the Bonum River and the same does not come within the Hirakud Reservoir. It is also averred that under the provisions of Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India, the Union Government is exempted from paying any tax imposed by the State Government and/or by its any authority. 4 To effectually adjudicate the dispute, a spot visit was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda and the Junior Engineer, P, H. D., Sadar, Jharsuguda on May 13, 1993. The memorandum of the spot visit is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. 4 To effectually adjudicate the dispute, a spot visit was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda and the Junior Engineer, P, H. D., Sadar, Jharsuguda on May 13, 1993. The memorandum of the spot visit is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. During the spot visit it was found that, in fact, the South-Eastern Railways has installed three electrical pump sets, one of 200 HP and the two numbers of 170 HP and the pumps were running one after the other. On a tentative calculation, the authorities arrived at a conclusion that the total average of water drawn comes to about 8 lakh/10 lakh gallons approximately. On the basis of the aforesaid spot enquiry report and other documents, the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda was not satisfied with the demand orders issued by the Irrigation officer in Irrigation Case No. 3 of 1988 and remanded the case to the Tahasildar for fresh calculation. However, in the concluding paragraph, the Sub-Collector observed as follows ; ".........,The plea of the appellant that the intake point is not within the reservoir is not accepted as the point is quite close to the reservoir." After disposal of the appeals which were remanded back to the Tahasildar for further enquiry and to decide the case on its own merit as pet the rules, the Irrigation Officer-cum-Tahasildar raised a demand of Rs. 90,36, 656/- and interest of of Rs. 97, 77,822/- in Irrigation Case No. 3 of 1998 which order is impuged in O J. C. No. 2139 of 1994. So far as the other three writ petitions are concerned i. e. O. J. C. Nos. 2271/94,3303/96 and 5885/98, the demands raised against the South-Eastern Railway towards payment of water rate, for the water used from the Hirakud Reservoir, by the Railways authorities for different years (vide Annexure-2) are impugned before this Court. 5. After receiving the Rule, opposite parties 3 and 4 appeared and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. Similarly, opposite parties 1 and 2 have also filed a counter-affidavit. A rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Railways-petitioner. After hearing Mr. Pal, learned Senior Advocate, for the Railways-petitioner, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, I find that without traversing into the disputed questions of fact, all the writ applications can be disposed of by this common judgment on this, short point. The submissions made by Mr. After hearing Mr. Pal, learned Senior Advocate, for the Railways-petitioner, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, I find that without traversing into the disputed questions of fact, all the writ applications can be disposed of by this common judgment on this, short point. The submissions made by Mr. Pal relying upon Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India, in my opinion, are not tenable in the eye of law. Article 285(1) of the Constitution deals with exemption of property of the Union from the State taxation. It, provides that no tax can be levied upon the property of the Union, whatever may be the mode of assessment. In the present case, water rate is charged for the water lifted/used/consumed by the South-Eastern Railways. Under the provisions of the Irrigation Act, 1959 the water rate is leviable. The submission of Mr. Pal is thus not sustainable. Mr. Pal, in his usual fairness, submitted that if the South-Eastern Railways is legally liable to pay the water rate, there will be no impediment for payment of the same, but liability is to be determined before raising any demand. 6. The main controversy between the Railway authorities and the State Government is, the place where from the water is drawn/lifted by the petitioner-Railways. It is all along asserted by the State authorities that the South-Eastern Railways is drawing from the ''Hirakud Reservoir". Whereas, the consistent case of the petitioner-Railways is that they are not lifting water from the "Hirakud ' Reservoir" but from the Bonum River. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is lifting water from the Hirakud Reservoir and within the contour of RL 632. A spot map is also enclosed to the said counter-affidavit to indicate the Hirakud Reservoir. At the other hand, the specific case of the petitioner-Railways is that they are lifting water from RL 780 and not from RL 632. This factual issue cannot be effectually resolved under the writ jurisdiction. Further, as would be evident from the order passed by the appellate authority, the case was remanded to the Tahasildar for further enquiry and to decide the case on its own merit as per the Rules. However, certain directions were issued to the Tahasildar to calculate the actual drawal of water with the help of technical persons. Further, as would be evident from the order passed by the appellate authority, the case was remanded to the Tahasildar for further enquiry and to decide the case on its own merit as per the Rules. However, certain directions were issued to the Tahasildar to calculate the actual drawal of water with the help of technical persons. It is emphatically submitted by Mr. Pal, learned Senior Advocate, that after remand, the irrigation authorities have not issued any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity and on the basis of surmises and conjectures issued the orders revising the demand and claiming astronomical figures. The appellate order also further reveals that the Sub-Collector Without any basis and without discussing any materials abruptly arrived at a conclusion that, the South-Eastern Railway's plea that they are not lifting water within the Hirakud Reservoir, is not accepted- Such observation is based on no materials. The question being the crux of the dispute, could not have been negative by the Sub-Collector without discussing the actual location where the petitioner is lifting the water. 7. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in the order of the appellate authority i. e. the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda, I feel, to resolve the dispute for all-times to come, it would be just and proper to direct the opposite parties to conduct an enquiry after serving due notice upon the petitioner-Railways, and first of all determine as to whether the petitioner-Railways is lifting water from the "Hirakud Reservoir" or not. In view of the fact that huge finance is involved, I further direct that if the State Government so desires, it can constitute a Committee comprising of Experts and competent officers who will visit the spot with prior intimation to the petitioner-Railways so as to enable it to remain present on the date of spot enquiry, if necessary along with its own officers. After spot enquiry, if the opposite parties are satisfied that in fact, the petitioner is drawing/lifting water from the "Hirakud Reservoir", they will determine as to the quantity of water/lifted by the petitioner-Railways and calculate the water rate payable by it. After spot enquiry, if the opposite parties are satisfied that in fact, the petitioner is drawing/lifting water from the "Hirakud Reservoir", they will determine as to the quantity of water/lifted by the petitioner-Railways and calculate the water rate payable by it. Before concluding, I make it further clear that if the South-Eastern Railways is, in fact, utilising water and is liable to pay water rate or cess in consonance with the provisions of Section21 of the 1959 Irrigation Act or any other provisions, the State authorities shall measure and/or calculate the water drawn/lifted by the petitioner and serve fresh demand notices in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of communication of the order. With the aforesaid observation, the demand notices (Annexure-2) are quashed and the appellate order (Annexure-4) is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. It is needless to say that the amounts already deposited by the petitioner in consonance with the direction passed by this Court shall be adjusted to the main demand. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 8. Writ petitions disposed of