1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition in a representative capacity and have sought writ of mandamus commanding official respondents not to divert the water of Nowkhol, comprising survey No. 682 of village Kamrzai Pora and also be restrained from raising any construction of siphon and channel and also to stop the construction of siphon and channel, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioners is that they are residents of village Kamrzai Pora, District Pulwama and are owners of 32 kanals and 09 marlas situated in the said village, the description of which is given in the writ petition. 3. It is further contended that Nowkhol is a source of irrigation for petitioners' land and is used for irrigating the land of land owners of village Drubgam. That this Nowkohal as per Rewaj Aabpashi is existing from times immemorial and is emanating from Nalla Romshi and Nalla Kakar Raagi. Official respondents are trying to divert the said source and are trying to divert water at the cost of petitioners' rights and the same is affecting them badly. 4. Both official as well as private respondents have filed reply. It is apt to reproduce Para 3 and 6 from the reply filed by official respondents herein:- "3. In reply to para 3 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners and other land owners coming under survey No. 772, 726, 725, 716, 715, 714, 713m 712m 696m, 694, 688, 685, 684 and 683 situated at village Kamrazipora are all getting irrigation supplies and are being fed by Now Khul Mirgund. The Khul viz. NowKhul Mirgund is the source of irrigation for the villages of Kamrazipora, Mirgund, Tokherpora and Drubgam, Aglar Kandi. Due to remodeling the discharge of the Khul has been increased by arresting leakage. Since the zamindars of the area have converted their paddy lands into horticultural lands and there is no need of constant irrigation of the horticultural land. The lands of the petitioners hence will not become barren/useless as alleged by the petitioners as the said land requires less irrigation supplies. The irrigation department provides the irrigation facilities to survey Nos. 958, 960, 961, 971, 973, 976, 978, 979, 986, 987 situated at village Drabgam Payeen since the said land mentioned has been authenticated for irrigation facilities by concerned Tehsildar and also forms the part of the project. The irrigation department provides the irrigation facilities to survey Nos. 958, 960, 961, 971, 973, 976, 978, 979, 986, 987 situated at village Drabgam Payeen since the said land mentioned has been authenticated for irrigation facilities by concerned Tehsildar and also forms the part of the project. 6. In reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the Tehsildar Pulwama has recommended for construction of said siphon/channel vide his letter No. 1561-62 dated 16.02.2010 and after completing the all procedures. An area of 200 kanals of land of village Drabgam may have got irrigated during the season 2011 through constructed siphon/channel, but due to some controversy/misunderstanding in between villages of Kamrazipora and Drabgam payeen, the siphon/channel become the victim and got damaged by some persons not known for stopping of irrigation facilities. With the result, the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned lodged an FIR in the Police Station, Rajpora for inquiry in the matter and to book the culprits as intimated by him vide his letter No. ISDP/161-62 dated 15/7/2011. No petitioner has been harassed by the officials/officers of the department as alleged by the petitioners." 5. The relevant portion out of the background facts of the reply filed on behalf of private respondents needs to be reproduced herein. "The documents annexed with the writ petition, particularly Annexure-PC fully demonstrate that Naw Kohal is first flowing through village Drabgam and thereafter waters are carried to other villages, including village Kamrazipora. The petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts. One of the branches of Naw Kohal registered as 'Minor Naw Kohal' in Irrigation Department, irrigating 205 kanal & 4 Maria of land in village Drabgam, was damaged in a brazen manner by the petitioners and have thereafter obtained interim direction by suppression of material facts and my misrepresentation.............It is necessary to state that one of thebranches of Naw Kohal which irrigates the fields, disclosed in Annexure-R5, owned by the answering respondents, was upgraded and renovated by the Irrigation Department. The upgradation and renovation of the water channel was necessitated because portion of the water channel was eroded by vagaries of weather. On the renovation of channel the answering respondents were receiving the water without any seepage and waste thereof. The upgradation and renovation of the water channel was necessitated because portion of the water channel was eroded by vagaries of weather. On the renovation of channel the answering respondents were receiving the water without any seepage and waste thereof. In the month of July, 2011 the petitioner villagers in a bizarre manner through violence damaged portion of the water channel which caused serious loss to the orchards for want of irrigation facilities and seriously affected the production as also the trees. Immediately after the damage to the water channel was caused, the answering respondents not only reported the matter to police and also reported damage to the Irrigation Department as also to the District Development Commissioner, Pulwama. An application filed by the answering respondents, marked Annexure-R6, was referred by District Development Commissioner Pulwama to Tehsildar Pulwama for settlement of the issue amicably. The Patwari was also associated with the enquiry. The report of the Patwari marked Annexure R-7 shows that Naw Kohal in village Drabgam passed through survey No. 1033 and as per the Riwaj Aabpashi, the Now Kohal provides water to different fields through its branches and no division of water is provided...............The Tehsildar, therefore, requested the Deputy Commissioner that water channel may got renovated/restored through Department of Irrigation to save the crops of the aforementioned land holders from further loss. The communication is marked Annexure-R8." 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioners have not questioned the letter dated 16th February, 2010-Order of Tehsildar whereby construction was ordered and completed. Thus the relief sought was not available to the petitioners at that time. Petitioners have not questioned the said letter and have not sought relief of writ of certiorari or mandamus. Even otherwise while going through the Annexure B and C i.e., Aksi Shajra and Riwaj Aabpashi, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that Nowkohal flows from Village Drabgam and thereafter runs through village Kamrzai pora. Thus the petitioners cannot claim exclusive rights over Nowkohal. Otherwise also, it is for the State to utilize the water and make best use of it. My view is fortified by this court judgment delivered in case titled Ghulam Mohammad Numberdar v. Mohd. Bhat and others reported as 2005 (1) SLJ 217, 2005 (1) JKJ [HC] 325. Thus the petitioners cannot claim exclusive rights over Nowkohal. Otherwise also, it is for the State to utilize the water and make best use of it. My view is fortified by this court judgment delivered in case titled Ghulam Mohammad Numberdar v. Mohd. Bhat and others reported as 2005 (1) SLJ 217, 2005 (1) JKJ [HC] 325. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 28 of the said judgment herein:- "In Secretary of State v. P.S. Nageswar Iyer, AIR 1936 Madras 923, it was held that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 i.e., Secretary of State precluded any claim entitled to the accustomed supply of water for irrigation of their lands, yet they can not acquire any exclusive right to the detriment of the paramount right of Secretary of State to regulate and control all supply of water in public streams and channels. Dwelling upon the nature of customary right and prescriptive right, the Court observed that though there are some common factors, there is a fundamental difference between the two. The customary right might give the plaintiffs all they really wanted but it may not give them an exclusive right to all the waters of the channel to the extent of preventing Government from using the water of the channel for other purpose even without prejudice to the plaintiff's accustomed user. Prescriptive might in certain circumstances support a claim of exclusive right, though the extent of a prescriptive right must generally be measured with reference to the user made by the claimant and not with reference to the mere flow in the channel. The Court further observed: "........A right by prescription to water in channel can be acquired as against the proprietary right of another, but not as against the sovereign right, which under the Indian Law the State possesses to regulate the supply of water in public streams so as to utilize it to the best advantage...." In the aforesaid case, the plaintiffs had brought a suit claiming exclusive right to all the waters flowing in a particular channel on the basis of customary right and also on the basis of prescription. From the above observations, it is clear that the custom cannot confer exclusive right to the detriment of State. Prescriptive right may confer exclusive right bus vis-avis only proprietary right of another and not the State. From the above observations, it is clear that the custom cannot confer exclusive right to the detriment of State. Prescriptive right may confer exclusive right bus vis-avis only proprietary right of another and not the State. The State in any case is empowered to regulate and control the supply of water in public streams and channels." In the given circumstances, the writ petition merits to be dismissed and is dismissed as such.