(1) SA. 360.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2008 Shri Gulab Goba Mali since deceased through LRs. and others .. Appellants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Dhule and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4872 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2008 Shri Gulab Goba Mali since deceased through LRs. and others .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Dhule and others .. Respondents Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants/Applicants Mrs. B.R. Khekale, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate for respondent no.s 4 and 7 None present for the other respondents-though served ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard learned counsel extensively. Grant of permission to the defendants near the river bed is challenged by the plaintiffs on the ground that it was not within the competence of the Revenue authorities to do so. According to the learned counsel, such permission ought to have been obtained (2) SA. 360.2008 from the Collector. Secondly, according to him, the applications moved to the authorities do not indicate erection or digging of well in the Government land. It is only lifting of water from the river bed by putting a 3 horse power motor and consequently, the authorities are misled by the defendants. 2] The written statement indicate, the permission for lifting of the water, was within the ambit and scope of the Gram Panchayat. The authorities contemplated that it was the Gram Panchayat which accord permission by it's resolution. The second aspect indicates that there was a letter from the Collector and the application of the defendant dated 30.11.1995 was considered. 3] It is more than clear that the act of lifting of water either by digging a temporary well and/or a ditch, commonly called as "budki", would be governed by the effect of Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976 and the authorities for such permission is stipulated therein. I do not see in the fact situation, there was any illegality by the authorities in permitting the defendants to dig the well in the river bed. If it was for the limited period and the user is continued, it is for the authorities to take legal recourse to stop misuse of the water even for the agricultural purposes in these days of scarcity. If the plaintiff feel aggrieved (3) SA. 360.2008 by the permission of lifting water, he would be put to jeopardy, he has his own means and ways in terms of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976 to apply to the competent authorities. 4] Second Appeal does not project any substantial question of law and the observations of both the Courts below do not warrant interference in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Civil Application no. 4872 of 2008, seeking injunction also stands dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp