JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This order shall dispose of two appeals being FAO No. 235 of 2005, titled as Digvijay Singh v. Bhagman Singh and others and FAO No. 243 of 2005, titled as Baldev Singh v. Bhagwan Singh and others, as they arise out of two virtually identical orders passed by the learned District Judge, Solan whereby he has allowed the applications for interim relief filed by the plaintiffs in the trial Court and has restrained the defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) from selling water from the suit land till disposal of the suit. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that Civil Suit No. 17-S/l of 2005 and Civil Suit No. 20-S/l of 2005 were filed by Bhagwan Singh and 54 other plaintiffs who were residents of Mauzas Ded, Mahi, Ghalie, Mahi, Jokhri, Srinagar, Dolang, Kadhar, against defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh, respectively. In both the suits Jai Parkash University of Information Technology and Hotel Destination Luxury Resort were arrayed as defendant’s No. 2 and 3. The allegations in both the plaints are similar. According to the plaintiffs they get water for drinking, both for humans and animals and for irrigation of their agricultural land from a water source system known as Kalaun Ki Kuhal. According to the plaintiffs this water system consists of three water sources, i.e. Kalaun Ki Kuhal, Shooli Ka Nullah and Chandi Ka Nullah. The plaintiffs alleged that they have customary rights which are recognized in the Wajib-ul-Urj of the villages and also find mention in the Riwazat Abpashi {irrigation by custom) and Riwazat Abnoshi (drinking water by custom). According to the plaintiffs, defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh only have a right to use the water of the said water system for drinking and irrigation purposes and cannot commercially exploit the water sources by selling water. The allegations made in the plaints are that the two main defendants, Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh had constructed water storage tanks and had diverted the water from the Khuds by using polythene and rubber pipes which has diminished the flow of the water thus depriving the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the villages from the adequate and proper supply of water. According to the plaintiffs, Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh had also laid pipes so as to take water from storage tanks to the National Highway and there they were selling the water to defendants No. 2 and 3. . 3, The defendants, Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh filed written statements. According to them the plaintiffs had no right in the water. It was stated that Shooli Ka Nullah is a dry Nullah and Chandi Ka Nullah is far away from the land in question. The case set up by the defendants is that they are tapping the water which is coming out in the numerous water sources existing on their own land in which the plaintiffs have no right. According to them the water which oozes out and emanates from their own land has nothing to do with the water source known as Kalaun Ki Kuhal. As per the defendants they collect the water which emanates from their own land and then sell it to defendants No. 2 and 3. The defendants aver that they have not interfered in the water system or water supply of the plaintiffs or any other villagers. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have a prima facie right in the water and that the defendants have no right to sell the same and exploit the water for commercial purposes, and has passed the impugned inter order. 4. 1 have heard Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for Digvijay Singh and Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for Baldev Singh as well as Mr. B.N. Misra and Mr. Bhupender Chaudhary, Advocates, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. According to the appellants, the trial Court has totally misread the entries in the Wajib-ul-Arz and the Naksha Abpashi. It has not further been contended that no right of easement has been sought for by the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs only claim a right in the Nullahs and Kuhals and they claim nor have any right in the water which emanates from the land of the defendants. It has also been urged that the suit has not been filed under Section 91 CPC and, therefore, it cannot be termed a suit in the public interest. It has been contended that there is no reference to any specific numbers from which the Nullahs or the water sources originate. It has also been urged that the suit has not been filed under Section 91 CPC and, therefore, it cannot be termed a suit in the public interest. It has been contended that there is no reference to any specific numbers from which the Nullahs or the water sources originate. It has also been urged that it has also not been specifically pleaded that which land of a particular plaintiff is going to be adversely affected by the action of the respondents. Only general statements have been made and no detailed plans have been filed to show how the plaintiffs are suffering any injury. It is further contended that the water being used by the appellant is their own water and since there is no allegation of injury in the plaint, no case is made out for grant of interim relief and order of the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate, states that a map has been filed alongwith the documents which shows all the Nullahs and Kuhals. He further states that Khasra numbers are given in Naksha Abpashi. He states that it is apparent that Mauza Ghalie, Ded and Dalog are downstream and they are bound to be affected by the action of the present appellants. He has also cited law to show that water is a God given source to be used for the benefit of the public at large and according to him no individual has a right to utilize it at the cost of others. It has also been contended that all the records of right, such as Wajib-ul-Arj have been signed by the pre-decessor-in-interest of Digvijay Singh and Baldev Singh. 7. At the outset it may be stated that a sketch map has been filed alongwith the plaint. Copies of the Aksh Sajra Kishtwar of various villages have also been filed. The sketch map filed by the plaintiffs shows the entire water system. Above the villages of all the parties is a Jungle, known as Karol Ka Jungle. There are two main water sources and some of these water sources combine to form the Karol Ka Nullah. Out of the Karol-Ka-Nullah, various water channels or Kuhals have been taken out. There is another Nullah which is shown as Shooli Ka Nullah. Above the villages of all the parties is a Jungle, known as Karol Ka Jungle. There are two main water sources and some of these water sources combine to form the Karol Ka Nullah. Out of the Karol-Ka-Nullah, various water channels or Kuhals have been taken out. There is another Nullah which is shown as Shooli Ka Nullah. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether this is a dry Nullah or not. It is also apparent that Ghalie, Ded and Dalog villages are below the point where the water is collected and below the National Highway. These facts are apparent from he documents filed with the plaint. 8. It would also be pertinent to notice that during the pendency of these appeals some of the original plaintiffs have withdrawn from the pit. They are now supporting the original defendants. 9. At this stage when the suit is at its initial stage and evidence has still not been recorded, it would not be appropriate for me to either discuss the documents placed on record in detail or to give my findings on the material issues which the learned trial Court shall have to decide after recording the entire evidence. 10. The suit as framed has not been framed under Section 91 C.P.C., [but it cannot be said that the suit is not a suit filed in the public interest. It is not necessary that for a litigation to be by way of public interest the same must be filed by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Public interest litigation can also be initiated By way of filing a suit or other legal proceedings. In the suit, specific allegations have been made that the general public of the area is being affected by the actions of the defendants. Therefore, the mere fact that specific injury to each and every plaintiff has not been clearly pinpointed in the plaint, in my opinion, is not a sufficient ground to reject the claim. Similarly the mere fact that easement right has not been claimed is not sufficient ground to say that the claim is prima facie not correct or maintainable. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Similarly the mere fact that easement right has not been claimed is not sufficient ground to say that the claim is prima facie not correct or maintainable. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, that the doctrine of public interest raised by the plaintiffs cannot be raised in a suit filed in the present form. 11. A reading of the plaint clearly shows that averments have been made that due to illegal diversion, storage and sale of water by defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh, Gair Mumkin Nullahs downstream have dried up and the forest growth and ecology is being affected badly. If this is not public interest, I fail to understand what amounts to public interest. 12. In the Wajib-ul-Arj of Up Mohal Srinagar it is recorded that all the water sources in the Mohal whether rivers, Nullahs or natural sources wherever they may be situate, shall be owned by the Government. All persons of the area shall have the right to take water for drinking purposes and for their cattle. The people shall have also right to take water for irrigation and water-mills (Gharat) so long as any existing water channel or water-mill is not affected thereby. Without the consent of all, the directions of any Khud or Nullah cannot be changed. A perusal of the Wajib-ul-Arz, prima facie leads to the conclusion that even the water sources existing in a private land shall belong to the Government. The idea appears to be that water is to be utilized by all the people jointly and not for the benefit of one person. In the Wajib-ul-Arj for Muhal Ded, the entry at column No. 6 is also in similar terms. Mr. Bhupender Gupta learned Senior Advocate has referred to the Wajib-ul-Arj for Mauza Takoli and submits that this Wajib-ul-Arj is applicable to Mahi and in this Wajib-ul-Arj there is no condition like the condition in the Wajib-ul-Arj for Muhal Srinagar and Ded. 13. The apex Court in Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and another v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 2 SCC 572, held as follows:— "1. Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, oppression. 13. The apex Court in Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and another v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 2 SCC 572, held as follows:— "1. Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, oppression. The primary use to which water is put being drinking; it would be mocking nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty, whereas others incidentally placed in an advantageous position are allowed to use the water for non-drinking purposes. A river has to flow through some territory; and it would be travesty of justice it the upper-riparian States were to use its water for purposes like irrigation, denying the lower-riparian States the benefit of using the water even for quenching the thirst of its residents." 14. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others, (1997) 1 SCC 388, the apex Court held as follows:— "25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on Governmental authority: "Three types of restrictions on Governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses." 34. Our legal system - based on English common law - includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Our legal system - based on English common law - includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands, The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership." 15. The apex Court while giving its direction in para 39 directed as under:- "39. (1) the public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land." 16. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and others, (2000) 10 SCC 664, the apex Court observed as under:— "248. Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can be sered only by providing source of water where there is none. The resolution of UNO in 1977 to which India is a signatory, during the United Nations Water conference resolved unanimously inter alia as under:— "All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs." 17. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court, it is clear m water is meant to be used by the entire public and one person cannot exploit the water source for commercial purpose to the detriment of the members of the public who have a right to use the same. In the present case already mentioned hereinabove, at least 3 Mauzas are below the land of defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh. At least these three Hauzas and the villages situated therein are bound to be affected by the sale of the water by the defendants. At this stage I am presuming that the defendants are exploiting the water source within their land. However, the water within the land of the plaintiffs does not get manufacturedlor produced in the land. At least these three Hauzas and the villages situated therein are bound to be affected by the sale of the water by the defendants. At this stage I am presuming that the defendants are exploiting the water source within their land. However, the water within the land of the plaintiffs does not get manufacturedlor produced in the land. The water percolates down from the Karol Forest via streams, Khuds or Nullahs, some of which may be over the ground land some of which may be underground. The entire water system is one eco-system and the mere fact that the water spouts out in the land of a particular individual would not entitle him to commercially exploit[the said water source and totally deprive the other right holders from the use of said water. In fact this aspect was recognized by all the villagers including the forefathers of defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh,who agreed that water where-ever be its source is to be used only for: the drinking purposes by human and cattle and for the running of Gharats and irrigation. The Wajib-ul-Arj relied upon by Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocte, (Annexure A-7) is for the year 1909 equivalent to 1969 B.K. The Wajib-ul-Arj referred to by the plaintiffs are of later periods. Therefore, 1 am relying upon Wajib-ul-Arj which are more proximate in time which have been signed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The Wajib-ul-Arj recognizes that it is the Government which is the owner of the source and not the individual. This is compatible with the public trust doctrine expounded by the apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 18. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that there is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh shall not commercially exploit the water which is part of the water system referred to in the plaint and sell the same to defendants No. 2 and 3 or any other person(s) even if the water source from which the water is being tapped is in their own land. 19. The parties, who are represented by Counsel in this Court, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6th November, 2006. 19. The parties, who are represented by Counsel in this Court, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6th November, 2006. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute, it is ordered that the matter shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any event not later than 30th October, 2007. The Registry is directed to send the record of the case forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed. -