Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1527 (KAR)

K. N. Vasantha Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2019-07-02

B.VEERAPPA

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. 1. The petitioners, who are agriculturists by profession are before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action and thereby restore free natural flow of Gangammanahalla rain water channel to its original state by removing newly laid down RCC Hume pipes beneath State Highway No. 131 near Kelaginakanive Village of Molakalmuru Taluk and thereby maintain natural flow of water without any disturbance as earlier. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are mainly depending on agriculture for their bread and butter and carrying on agricultural activities in their respective lands situated at various villages of Molakalmuru Taluk besides Gangammanahalla rain water stream. The said Gangammanahalla rain water stream flows towards south-west from its catchment area near Kelaginakanive Village of Molakalmuru Taluk and yields the water requirement of more than ten villages on the lower side. There is no other water source except Gangammanahalla to more than ten villages which finally merges with Vedavathi river. The said Gangammanahalla rain water channel naturally flows from North to South-West for the last many years without any disturbance. It is the further case of the petitioners that all of a sudden the neighbouring villagers of Konapura dug the State Highway No. 131 and laid RCC Hume pipes beneath the road and thereby diverting the Gangammanahalla rain water channel to their village tank and thereby disturbing free flow of Gangammanahalla adversely affecting the petitioners and other villagers. The Tahsildar, Molakalmuru Taluk and concerned police are not taking any action to restore the free natural flow of Gangammanahalla rain water channel inspite of repeated representations made by the petitioners and other villagers. 3. It is further contended that though the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, is empowered under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act for short) to protect the streams, channels, rivers, tanks, lakes, etc., has failed to implement the same. The Police Department has not given protection to the PWD and Revenue authorities to implement the directions of the Deputy Commissioner. There is some unknown force working behind the screen and not allowing to restore free flow of Gangammanahalla water channel to its original status. Though the State Highway is dug and RCC Hume pipes were laid illegally and without any authority, the same is not stopped or objected by the PWD and Revenue Department. There is some unknown force working behind the screen and not allowing to restore free flow of Gangammanahalla water channel to its original status. Though the State Highway is dug and RCC Hume pipes were laid illegally and without any authority, the same is not stopped or objected by the PWD and Revenue Department. No effective steps have been taken by the PWD and Revenue Department to restore free flow of Gangammanahalla rain water channel to its original status. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. 4. The State Government has filed objections and sought for dismissal of the petition. It has further contended that Molakalmuru Taluk, Gangammanahalla is near SH-131 i.e. Hampi- Kamalapura-Hagari Bommalinganahalli road. In this SH-131, road of K.M. No. 81.50 i.e. between Kelaginakaniva and Obalapura Village, the villagers of Konapura have unauthorisedly and without permission of PWD have dug the road and laid the RCC Hume pipes on 12.10.2014 for the purpose of using the water of Gangammanahalla for storage in Gogakatte and for using the water for drinking purpose for animals and cattles during rainy season, but channel has not been constructed from Gangammanahalla to Konapura Gokatte. It is further contended that the authorities have taken steps and stopped further digging of the channel and they are taking action in accordance with law. Therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The respondent No. 7 filed objections denying the averments made in the writ petitions and contended that the claim of the petitioners that the natural flow of Gangammanahalla passes through various villages namely NRK Pura, Obalapura, Ramapura, Dosareddykere, Bommakkanahalli Village, Murali Village, Sirakola Village and Karadihalli Village on the eastern side of SH-131 and thereafter flow towards sought-west and merges with Vedavathi river is not fully correct. It is further contended that the Gangammanahalla is a rain fed stream that flows from Santhe Gudda Bandrevi Forest. During the rainy season the stream flows in full spate having regard to the terrain. During its natural flow, the tributary of the stream fed the pond in Konapura village called Konapura Gokatte which is used for drinking and for cattle. The SH-131 was then a mud road and did not obstruct free flow of water to the Konapura Gokatte. During the rainy season the stream flows in full spate having regard to the terrain. During its natural flow, the tributary of the stream fed the pond in Konapura village called Konapura Gokatte which is used for drinking and for cattle. The SH-131 was then a mud road and did not obstruct free flow of water to the Konapura Gokatte. The PWD of the Government of Karnataka heightened the road and asphalted it without providing for pipes beneath it to ensure the free flow of water from Gangammanahalla to Konapura Gokatte. As a result, free flow of water into Konapura Gokatte of Konapura was blocked. Thus the villagers of Konapura and their cattle were deprived of the only source of water. Therefore, the villagers of Konapura laid a pipe below SH-131 so as to drain water into Konapura during the rainy season. The petitioners therefore cannot now contend that Gangammanahalla did not feed the Gokatte of Konapura. By laying the pipes beneath the SH-131, the villagers have merely restored the natural flow of water, but have not diverted it as alleged. Therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. When the matter came up before this Court on 27.05.2019, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Executive Engineer, respondent Nos. 2 and 4, respectively, to file a report to solve the problem between the petitioners and other villagers permanently. In pursuance of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner inspected the spot and filed the report and stated that due to shortage of water in Konapura Village, the villagers diverted the water to Konapura and stopped the natural flow of water in Gangammanahalla. It is further stated that the availability of water at Gangammanahalla can be assessed only during rainy season. Water availability statistics is not available at present. It is further stated that during this rainy season water availability will be assessed by Minor Irrigation Department. Based on that report, apportioning of water can be decided. Out of the available water, 50% of water will be diverted to Konapura Village (Konapurakere) for the benefit of Konapura Village people, rest will be diverted to natural nala. The said report is placed on record. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri. Out of the available water, 50% of water will be diverted to Konapura Village (Konapurakere) for the benefit of Konapura Village people, rest will be diverted to natural nala. The said report is placed on record. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri. Rama Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions has contended that Gangammanahalla rain water channel is natural flow of rain water through various villages which fulfills the water requirement of ten villages on the lower side. The same was recently stopped by Konapura Villagers, who dug the State Highway No. 131 and laid RCC Hume pipes beneath the road and thereby diverted the Gangammanahalla rain water channel to their village tank and thereby disturbing free flow of Gangammanahalla adversely affecting the petitioners and other villagers. The same was brought to the notice of concerned authorities, but they have not taken any action. It is further contended that in view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to hold enquiry and pass appropriate orders in respect of the dispute in respect of all public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks, etc. Inspite of such power, the Deputy Commissioner has not acted on the representations made. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petitions. 9. Per contra, Sri. Harsha Y.D. learned Additional Government Advocate for R1 to R6, reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, has admitted the fact that the Konapura villagers have unauthorisedly dug the road and laid RCC Hume pipes and thereby maintain the natural flow of water. Subsequently the authorities stopped further digging. He therefore submits that the Deputy Commissioner will take necessary steps to ensure that there would not be any problem in between the petitioners and the village represented by respondent No. 7, in terms of the report submitted by her before this Court. 10. Sri. Subsequently the authorities stopped further digging. He therefore submits that the Deputy Commissioner will take necessary steps to ensure that there would not be any problem in between the petitioners and the village represented by respondent No. 7, in terms of the report submitted by her before this Court. 10. Sri. Nataraja R. learned counsel for respondent No. 7, while justifying the laying of pipes beneath the road has stated that while PWD heightened the road and asphalted it without providing for pipes beneath it to ensure the free flow of water from Gangammanahalla to Konapura Gokatte, free flow of water into Konapura Gokatte of Konapura was blocked. Thus the villagers of Konapura and their cattle were deprived of the only source of water. Therefore the villagers of Konapura laid a pipe below SH-131 so as to drain water into Konapura during the rainy season and the petitioners therefore cannot contend that Gangammanahalla did not feed the Gokatte of Konapura. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the dispute between the petitioners' villages and village of respondent No. 7 is with regard to free flow of water through Gangammanahalla from its catchment area near Kelaginakanive Village. It is the case of the petitioners that the Gangammanahalla rain water channel is the natural flow of rain water through various villages which fulfills the water requirement of more than ten villages. The same is unauthorisedly stopped by respondent No. 7 of Konapura Village. It is the case of respondent No. 7 that natural flow of water was stopped by the PW department while heightening the road and asphalting it without providing pipelines beneath it to ensure free flow of water from Gangammanahalla to Konapura. Therefore the villagers of Konapura laid pipeline below SH-131 so as to drain water into Konapura during rainy season. When the legal battle is with regard to water within Chitradurga District, Molakalmuru Taluk, it is the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to rush to the spot and stop the water battle then and there itself and it is the representatives of the District to ensure that there would not be any internal dispute between the villagers for free flow of natural rain water. Unfortunately, because of the non-institutional responsibility by the local PW department, the Deputy Commissioner and by the local representatives, the petitioners are before this Court crying for rain water. Both the villagers are fighting for rain water clearly indicates that the respondents-authorities or local representatives have not discharged their institutional responsibility and constitutional obligation. 12. It is mandatory for the authorities and the local representatives and all the villagers to ensure natural flow of rain water, as it was going for more than ten years without disturbance, and ensure the natural flow of rain water should be distributed equally to all the villages including the petitioners' village and the village of respondent No. 7 in accordance with the provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 51A of the Constitution of India. Because of lack of institutional responsibility by both the authorities as well as local representatives, the matter is before this Court. The inaction on the part of the authorities and the local representatives unnecessarily drove the villagers before this Court for water battle. It is the mistake on part of both the villagers, as they have no human relationship, brotherhood except fighting for natural water. The authorities and local representatives should have settled the matter amicably and ensure equal natural flow of rain water to all the villages and enjoy their life happily without any disturbance. Unfortunately it is the mistake on the part of both the villagers i.e. petitioners and respondent No. 7, the authorities and the local representatives, which has encouraged legal battle for natural water. It is high time for the Deputy Commissioner, who is the head of the District to ensure free flow of rain water equally to both the villages as per her report filed before this Court dated 06.06.2019. 13. As per the report submitted by the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner, the availability of water in Gangammanahalli can be assessed only during rainy season and water availability statistics is not available at present. It is further undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner in the said report that during this rainy season, water availability will be assessed by Minor Irrigation Department and based on that report apportioning of water can be decided. It is further undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner in the said report that during this rainy season, water availability will be assessed by Minor Irrigation Department and based on that report apportioning of water can be decided. The Deputy Commissioner has further submitted that out of the available water 50% of water will be diverted to Konapura Village (Konapurakere) for the benefit of Konapura Village people, rest will be diverted to natural nala. 14. In view of the undertaking affidavit filed before this Court by the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner shall ensure to resolve the dispute of natural flow of rain water from Gangammanahalla to Konapura and other villages equally and the Deputy Commissioner being the Head of the District shall take necessary steps to resolve the dispute between the parties permanently. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are disposed of. The 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner is directed to take appropriate action to restore free natural flow of Gangammanahalli rain water channel and distribute the natural water to all the petitioners' villages as well as the village of respondent no. 7 i.e. Konapura in terms of the undertaking/ report filed before this Court and shall not give any room for further litigation/ battle for natural water. 16. This Court hope and trust that the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner being the Head of the District shall take responsibility and distribute the water amicably, acting like a mother to all the villagers. The Deputy Commissioner is also directed to ensure safety of Gokatte of all the villages. 17. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District to ensure the implementation of this order without giving any room for further legal battle for natural water in the interest of the villagers at large. Ordered accordingly.