MADAN LAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 226, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
MADAN LAL
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6975 of 2019)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954: s.53 – Dispute
with regard to water and its distribution to the fields of contesting
parties – Appellant approached the Authorities under the 1954 Act
but was unsuccessful – He filed suit before the trial court challenging
the order of Appellate Authority which was also dismissed – First
appellate court allowed the appeal of appellant which was, however,
set aside by High Court on the ground that the civil court could not
entertain or deal with such disputes – On appeal, held:  Under
s.53, if  there  is  a  difference between two or more persons with
regard to rights and  liabilities in respect of the use, construction or
maintenance of a  water courses, then the dispute has to be first
referred to the  Divisional Irrigation Officer,  who  enquires the
matter and pass an order – He can also transfer the  matter to the
Collector who may enquire into the matter and dispose  it of – The
appeal against the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer lies to
the Superintending Irrigation Officer – s.53 (2) is absolutely clear
that the order passed by  the Authorities under the Act would be
final for any crop sown or growing when such order is made and
shall remain in force until set  aside by the decree of a Civil Court –
This clearly implies that
the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain
and decide such a  dispute – The only caveat is that the Civil Court
shall not pass  any order in respect of crops sown or growing in the
land at the  time of passing of the order – High Court fell in error
while holding that the Civil  Court could not have set aside the suit
– Judgment of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to the
High Court to decide  the dispute on merits – Water disputes –
Jurisdiction of civil court.
226
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 226
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6975
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated  12.01.2015  of the High
Court  of Judicature  of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil
Second Appeal No.317 of 2008.
 Pushpinder Singh, Amrit Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda
Mishra, Harsha Vinoy, Milind Kumar, Sunil Kr. Sharma, Niraj Sharma,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
12.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Second
Appeal No. 317 of 2008.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
4. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to water
and how it is to be given to the field of contesting parties. This dispute
was taken to the Authorities under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage
Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant lost before the said
Authority.
5. The appellant, thereafter, filed a suit before the Trial Court
challenging the order of the Appellate Authority which was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court,  the appellant filed an appeal
before the First Appellate Court, which was allowed. The private
respondents filed a Second Appeal in the High Court and the High Court
set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and upheld the
judgment of the Trial Court holding
that the Civil Court could not entertain
or deal such disputes.
6. The High Court did not take into consideration Section 53 of
the Act which reads as follows:-
“53.  Settlement of reference as to mutual rights  and liabilities of
persons interested in water course.-(1) Whenever a difference
arises between two or more persons in regard to their mutual
rights or liabilities in respect of the use, construction or maintenance
MADAN LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
of a water course, any such person may apply in writing to the
Divisional Irrigation Officer stating the matter in dispute; and such
officer shall thereupon give notice to the other persons interested
that, on a day to be named in such notice, he will proceed to
enquire into the said matter and, after such enquiry, he shall pass
his order thereon unless he transfers (as he is hereby empowered
to do) the matter to the Collector who shall thereupon enquire into
and pass his order on the said matter.
(2) Such order shall be final as to the use or distribution of water
for any crop sown or growing at the time when such order is
made and shall thereafter remain in force until set aside by the
decree in a Civil Court.”
7. A bare perusal of Section 53 shows that if there is a difference
between two or more persons with regard to rights and liabilities in respect
of the use, construction or maintenance of a water courses, then the
dispute has to be first referred to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, who
after giving notice shall enquire the matter and pass an order. He can
also transfer the matter to the Collector who may enquire into the matter
and dispose it of. The appeal against the order of the Divisional Irrigation
Officer lies to the Superintending Irrigation Officer.
8. Section 53 (2) is absolutely clear that the order passed by the
Authorities under the Act would be final for any crop sown or growing
when such
order is made and shall remain in force until set aside by the
decree of a Civil Court. This clearly implies that  the Civil Court has
jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a dispute. The only caveat is
that the Civil Court shall not pass  any order in respect of crops sown or
growing in the land at the time of passing of the order.
9. The High Court fell in error while holding that the Civil Court
could not have set aside the suit. On this ground, we feel that the judgment
of the High Court requires to be set aside. We order accordingly and
remand the matter to the High Court to decide the dispute on merits. We
further direct that the Second Appeal shall be treated to have been filed
in the year 2008 and shall be given priority accordingly.
10. The civil appeal is allowed.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.