Sri H M Suresh vs Sri H M Prakash on 6 April, 2017
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got
marked Exs.P-1 to P-13. The defendant examined
himself as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D-9. The
trial Court though not framed any issue with regard to
the maintainability of the suit or the jurisdiction of the
court, selected issue Nos.3 & 4 in order to answer the
jurisdiction of the court and maintainability of the suit.
The trial Court in fact, as could be seen from its
judgment, has not at all given any finding sofar as issue
Nos.1 & 2 are concerned. The trial Court mainly relied
upon the ruling of this court reported in ILR 1989 KAR
705 between Abdul Jabbar Vs. Devarajaiah, to come to
the conclusion that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction
to deal with the irrigation matter. The aggrieved parties
have to approach the Irrigation Officer under the Act
and the Irrigation Officer of the rank of an Assistant
Commissioner or Assistant Engineer as the case may be
as provided u/s.3(6) of the Act. Upon a dispute having
been preferred to the Irrigation Officer u/s.12 of the
Act, the latter is expected to hold a formal enquiry and
resolve the same in terms of the enquiry held by him.
7
If the dispute is not satisfactorily resolved off by the
Irrigation Officer, then it would be open to the
aggrieved person to file an appeal to the jurisdictional
Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner's
order becomes final and however, the said order of the
Deputy Commissioner is subject to the decree of a Civil
Court if approached therefrom. Merely relying upon the
above said ruling, the trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the parties have already filed the
applications before the Irrigation Officer without waiting
for the decision of the Irrigation Officer, the plaintiff has
rushed to the court for his reliefs. The court has come
to the conclusion that in view of the provisions under
the Irrigation Act, the suit is not maintainable u/s.69(5)
of the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 and accordingly,
dismissed the suit.