LexORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. versus TASHILDAR-CUM-IRRIGATION OFFICER AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. v. TASHILDAR-CUM-IRRIGATION OFFICER AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 7, 1998 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Olissa lnigation Act, 1959 : Sections 2( d) and 28. ll7igatio11 work-Water rate--Lei)' of-For drawing water from-Reser- C voir-Meaning of-Maximum level of Dam stated to be 630 RL-Appellant lifted water from a point which was below 630 RL in the liver bed-Autholities found that flow of water was not on(v limited to the liver but it extended to the elllire rese1voir including central areas coveling the contours of the rese1~ voir and any water lifted from the point whether apparently stagnant, flowing or artificially stored would be water coming from an inigatio11 work under the D definition of the Act and would be liable to payment of water rate and other consequences presoibed under the Act-Held : Consistent finding of fact by the authorities is proper and conclusive. E F G Practice and Procedure : Remmzd-Open remand-Appellate autholity set aside entire order under appeal and remanded the matter to the autholity concemed-He/d : Since it was an ope11 remand where the scope of the enquiry was not resuicted, it was pemzissible for the concemed autlwlity to examine all questions arising thereto. Words and Phrases : "R.~se1voir" and "inigation work''-Meaning of-!11 the context of S.4(d) of the Olissa lnigatio11 Act, 1959. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of paper and board. The appellant had been drawing water for its use from the flowing stream of a river. A dam was constructed by the State Government the maximum level of the reservoir of which was 630 RL. The Irrigation Officer imposed water rate on the appellant under the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959 as it drew H water from the reservoir of the said dam. 442 ·' .... ..... -. ORIENTPAPERAND INDUSIRIES L1D. v. TASHILDAR-CUM-IRRlGATION OFFICER 443 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant preferred an appeal A before the appellate authority. The appellate authority set aside the entire order under appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal after proper inquiry. It was found by the authorities that the pdint from which the appellant drew water was found to be below 630 RL in the bed of the said river. The authority also found that the flow of water was not only B limited to the river but it extended to the entire reservoir including central areas covering the contours of the lower level. Ultimately, it was observed that the intake point was within 630 RL and hence it was part of the reservoir and any water lifted from the point whether apparently stag- nant, flowing or artificially stored would be water coming from an irriga- tion work as defined under Section 4( d) of the Act. Therefore, the appellate authority held that the appellant would be liable to payment of water rate and other consequences prescribed under the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. c On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Irrigation D Officer could not got into fresh assessment of water rate and should have restricted himself to determine whether water was being drawn from within the reservoir or not; and that the point at which the water was drawn by the appellant did not lie within the reservoir area or water was not drawn from a government source or a waterworks. E Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Irrigation work is defined under Section 4( d) of the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959 as to include all land occupied by Government for the purpose of reservoir, tanks etc. and other structures occupied by or on F behalf of the State Government on such land. A reservoir cannot be understood merely to be a means to hold water in a stream. It is only by controlling the flowing stream in an area water can be stored in reservoir. Viewed thus, irrigation work would include land used for such purpose. In this case the finding recorded by the authorities is in accord with this view .. 'Reservoir' may not necessarily mean only the constructed part of the land G but includes the area where the water is held by a dam constructed by the . Government; then if from such a point falling within that area water is drawn it must be held that the appellant is liable to pay the water rate. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the point at whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.