SREEDAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in o. S. No. 17 of 192 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bailhongal. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 5 in the suit. The respondent is the plaintiff filed the suit for damages claiming Rs. 8,55,000/ -. A presentable grievance is made out by the plaintiff in this suit. Plaintiff states that he owns 11. 13 guntas of agricultural land in Munoli village of Saundatti Taluk. On account of Malaprabha Irrigation Project, canals and field channals have been dug in the agricultural lands. On account of constant flow of water in the field canals and channels, there is a threat of constant seepage of water rendering the lands in the adjoining non aycut area affected by salinity. The plaintiff claims to be the victim of the aforesaid consequence and that his land is totally affected by salinity and has rendered his lands unfit for cultivation. Under the normal conditions, plaintiff claims that by growing groundnut, cotton, jower, wheat etc. , he used to have an annual net income of Rs. 5,000/- per annum. In view of the salinity, the land has become unfit for cultivation since ten years and in all claims damaged of Rs. 8,55,000/ -. The plaintiff prosecuted the suit as an indigent person. ( 2 ) THE defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement denying the liability to answer the suit claim, denies the contention of the plaintiff that the suit land is affected by salinity on account of the irrigation project and pray for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff prosecuted the suit as an indigent person. The trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,11,391/- with interest at 10 percent per annum from the date of suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 69 and 33 of the Karnataka Irrigation act the suit of the plaintiff is barred and in the evidence a sketch produced by the plaintiff to show that there is a natural stream flowing near by the lands of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 69 and 33 of the Karnataka Irrigation act the suit of the plaintiff is barred and in the evidence a sketch produced by the plaintiff to show that there is a natural stream flowing near by the lands of the plaintiff. Therefore it was contended that it is not clinching from the material that the alleged salinity is on account of the peculation of the water from the canals or from the natural stream. The Counsel also submitted that the method adopted by the plaintiff in seeking damages is untenable and for every year's of loss, the plaintiff cannot make a claim in the manner claimed and if it so permitted literally the plaintiff can successfully get a compensation eternally for every year on the ground of failure of crop on account of salinity. It is also contended that the claim is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Act. ( 4 ) FOR convenient reference, the provisions of Section 33, 69 and sub-section (3) of Section 69 are referred to hereunder:"33. It is also contended that the claim is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Act. ( 4 ) FOR convenient reference, the provisions of Section 33, 69 and sub-section (3) of Section 69 are referred to hereunder:"33. Compensation for damage caused consequent on the exercise of powers conferrered by this Act-Compensation may be awarded in respect of any substantial damage caused by the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this Act, which is capable of being ascertained: provided that no compensation shall be so awarded in respect of any damage arising from- (a) deterioration of climate or soil, or (underlining is supplied by me) (b) stoppage of navigation or of the means of floating timber or of watering cattle: or (c) stoppage or diminution of the supply of water in consequence of the exercise of the power conferred by Section 5, if no use has been made of such supply within the five years next before the date of the issue of the notification under section 5: or (d) failure or stoppage of any water in a channel or Irrigation work where such failure or stoppage is due to- (i) any cause beyond the control of the authority incharge of the irrigation work: (ii) the execution of any repairs alterations or additions to the channel or irrigation work: (iii) any measures considered necessary by Irrigation Officer, for regulating the proper flow of water in the channel or for maintaining established course of irrigation: or (iv) circumstanced mentioned under clauses (a) to (f) of section 29: provided further that any person who suffers loss from any stoppage or diminution of water supply to his lands due to any of the cause named in clause (d) of the proceeding proviso shall be entitled to such remission of the water rate payable by him as may be authorised by the State Government. ""69. Bar of certain proceedings etc.- (1) No suit prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against any officer or servant of the State Government for any act done or purporting to be done under this Act, without the previous sanction of the State Government. ""69. Bar of certain proceedings etc.- (1) No suit prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against any officer or servant of the State Government for any act done or purporting to be done under this Act, without the previous sanction of the State Government. (2) No officer or servant of the State Government shall be liable in respect of any such act in any Civil or Criminal proceeding if the act was done in good faith in the course of the execution of duties or the discharge of the functions imposed by or under this Act. (3) No suit shall be instituted against the State Government in respect of any act done unless the suit is instituted within six months from the date of the act complained of. " (4) In the case of an intended suit against any officer or servant of the State Government under sub-section (1), the person intending to shall be bound to give the officer or servant as the case may be one month's notice atleast of the intended suit with sufficient description of the cause of action, failing which such suit shall be dismissed, (5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil court shall entertain any suit in respect of any matter to which this Act applies. "on close reading of the provisions it is evident from the proviso (a) to Section 33 that no compensation can be awarded on the ground of deterioration of climate or soil. On account of commissioning of the irrigation project if the lands in the adjoining non aycut area are affected by salinity, it would be a case of deterioration of the quality of soil. The commissioning of the irrigation project, digging of canals and field channals for irrigating the lands in Aycut area are the functions carried out by the authorities by exercise of powers in the irrigation Act. The proviso (a) to Section 33 clearly prohibits grant of compensation on the ground of deterioration of climate or soil. So also the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 69, debars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit in respect of any matter to which the Act applies. The proviso (a) to Section 33 clearly prohibits grant of compensation on the ground of deterioration of climate or soil. So also the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 69, debars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit in respect of any matter to which the Act applies. The combined reading of the proviso (a) to Section 33 and sub-section 5 of Section 69 of the Act clearly debars the party from claiming compensation on the ground of deterioration of climate or soil and equally the jurisdiction of the civil court is debarred under sub-section 5 of Section 69 on any matter to which the Act applies. ( 5 ) SUB-SECTION 3 of Section 69 declares that no suit can bein stituted against the State Government in respect of any act so done unless it is instituted within six months from the date the act complained of. By virtue of the provisions of Section 33 and subsection 5 of Section 69 the civil suit is barred even otherwise any permissible action under the Act against a Government can be instituted within six months from the date the act complained of. In the present suit, the plaintiff claims damages for a period of almost 10 years prior to the suit. Under the provisions of Limitation Act also no claim beyond three years can be entertained. ( 6 ) IN view of the provisions of Karnataka Irrigation Act the claim of the plaintiff in the suit is untenable but the grievance complained of cannot be said to be unfounded. It is of course to the common knowledge that inview of the constant flow of water in the improperly maintained canals seepage of water is a imminent eventuality. The lands adjoining such canals which are not covered by Aycut will not have benefit of the irrigation facilities. For dry farming also the lands would be rendered unfit on account of the salinity. In view of provisions of the Karnataka Irrigation Act perhaps the plaintiff may not have the remedy but it cannot be said that plaintiff has no grievance at all. So long the provisions of Section 33 prohibit compensation on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of proviso to section 33, the plaintiff cannot seek remedy before the Civil Court. In view of provisions of the Karnataka Irrigation Act perhaps the plaintiff may not have the remedy but it cannot be said that plaintiff has no grievance at all. So long the provisions of Section 33 prohibit compensation on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of proviso to section 33, the plaintiff cannot seek remedy before the Civil Court. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the institution of suit before the Civil Court was without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the 'civil Petition filed by the respondent to prosecute the cross-appeal as an indigent person in CP539/95 seeking grant of damages to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- is also dismissed. --- *** --- .