ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.--I.A. No. I is allowed. Delay condoned. 2. It is said that the Respondent in appeal is died on 20.5.2001. This appeal came to be disposed of on 5.7.2001 subsequent to the death. The review petition is filed by the Legal Representative of the deceased Respondent and contends that the Judgment and Decree being against the dead person, the same is to be set aside and the Legal Representatives to be permitted to come on record to argue the matter. The petition is allowed. The Legal Representatives are permitted to come on record. 3. The Petitioner contends that on account of bad construction and maintenance of irrigation canals, the land of the Petitioner is affected by salinity permanently and has been rendered unfit for cultivation. Therefore, has sought for compensation for the damage caused to the land, the provisions of Section 33 debars the claim of compensation, if the damage arises on account of deterioration of climate or soil caused by exercise of any of the powers conferred by this Act. Obviously, the construction and maintenance of the irrigation canals are carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Act. 4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the damage to the land is not directly on account of commissioning of the irrigation project and construction of canals, but, on account of faulty and negligent construction and maintenance of the canals, which results in avoidable seepage. Therefore, contends that Section 33 of the Karnataka Irrigation Act is no bar for the Petitioner to claim compensation. The argument merits due consideration. However, I find the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred under the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Irrigation Act. The Petitioner can prosecute his claim before the Deputy Commissioner to seek necessary compensation, if entitled to in law. The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.