Oral Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Phadte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2a to 2c and 3a.
2. Rule. Heard forth with the consent of the learned counsel.
3. Mr. Phadte, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 2a to 2c and 3a.
4. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Mamlatdar and the learned Dy. Collector whereby in the proceedings under Section 4 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, the learned Mamlatdar has granted a relief inter-alia directing the petitioners, their agents, contractors not to interfere and disturb the respondents from using the natural flow of water from the suit spring for the purpose of domestic use and for irrigating the agricultural land at any point of time.
5. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the impugned order passed by the learned Mamlatdar and drew my attention to the findings of the learned Mamlatdar while discussing issue nos. 2 and 3 and pointed out that the learned Mamlatdar has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioners have not obstructed or attempted to obstruct the free flow of water to the property of the respondents. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the learned Mamlatdar while drawing such conclusion has relied upon the admission on the part of the respondents as well as the material on record and the site inspection carried out to hold that there was no material brought by the respondents to suggest that any obstruction or impediment was caused to the free flow of water to the property of the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that once the learned Mamlatdar has come to such conclusion, the question of granting any relief to the respondents in the manner in which such relief has been granted by the learned Mamlatdar would not arise. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the judgment of the learned Dy. Collector passed in the revision preferred by the petitioners wherein the learned Dy. Collector has also come to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to establish any impediment in the free flow of water into the property of the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that despite of drawing such conclusion, the learned Dy. Collector has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that both the authorities below have acted in material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders as they have exceeded their jurisdiction in granting the relief in favour of the respondents despite of the fact that there is no material to show that the petitioners have caused any impediment in the free flow of water to the property of the respondents. The learned counsel also pointed out that in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, such proceedings are to be filed within one year and both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the plaint filed by the respondents was barred by limitation. The learned counsel further pointed out that once the learned Mamlatdar has come to such conclusion, granting of any relief would be in excess of his jurisdiction which is not permissible. The learned counsel as such points out that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A. Phadte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2a to 2c and 3a has supported the impugned orders. The learned counsel pointed out that it is not in dispute that the learned Mamlatdar while deciding issue no.1 has come to the conclusion that the respondents are enjoying the free flow of water from the natural spring which is located adjoining the property of the petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is not open to the petitioners to cause any impediment to prevent the respondents from using the water from the natural spring for their domestic as well as for irrigation purpose. The learned counsel further pointed out that the proceedings under the Mamlatdars Courts Act are beneficial legislation for the benefit of the farmers such as the respondents whereby a person like the petitioner should not cause any impediment for the use of water by the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that the orders passed by the learned Mamlatdar are in the interest of justice and as such the question of any interference in such orders would not arise. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned orders as well as the material on record and pointed out that once it is held that the respondents are using the water from the natural spring, it is not open to the petitioners to cause any obstruction in such free flow of water to the use of the respondents. The learned counsel has further pointed out that though the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to establish any impediment with regard to the free flow of water by the petitioners nevertheless, the respondents have apprehension that the petitioners may cause such obstruction and as such the authorities below were justified to grant the relief to the respondents. The learned counsel as such points out that the petition deserves to be rejected.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the records. The short point for consideration is whether once the learned Mamlatdar has come to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to establish that any impediment has been created by the petitioners which would impede the free flow of water into the property enjoyed by the respondents a relief restraining the petitioners from disturbing the flow of water could be granted by the authorities. On perusal of the records and the findings of the learned Mamlatdar, I find that while discussing issue nos.2 and 3 there is a categorical finding arrived at by the learned Mamlatdar that the respondents have failed to establish that the petitioners have caused any impediment in the free flow of water. While drawing such findings, the learned Mamlatdar has appreciated the deposition of the respondents as well as the other material on record to come to such conclusion. While re-appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Dy. Collector has also found that the respondents have failed to establish that the petitioners have caused any impediment in the free flow of water. Once such findings have been arrived at, the question of granting any relief to the respondents would not arise. It is well settled that for the purpose of obtaining a relief, the cause of action on which a party seek a relief has to be established before such relief can be granted. On mere apprehension, the learned Mamlatdar cannot grant a relief as prayed for.
8. On going through the provisions of Section 4 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, an injunction can be granted essentially in cases in which the impediment has been done or attempted to be done. In the present case, the learned Mamlatdar has come to the conclusion that no such impediment has been done nor attempted to be done by the petitioners. On the face of such finding, the question of granting any relief in favour of the respondents is in excess of jurisdiction conferred on the learned Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars Courts Act.
9. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the learned Mamlatdar has granted such relief on mere apprehension, I find that such power cannot be found in the provisions of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. In case any such impediment is caused, the respondents are always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings with that regard on the basis of any such fresh cause of action. At this stage, considering the findings arrived at by the learned Mamlatdar referred to herein above and endorsed by the learned Dy. Collector, I find that the learned Mamlatdar was not justified to grant the relief as directed in the order.
10. For the aforesaid reasons and subject to what has been stated herein above, Rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.