Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 25: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh today said that every water source in the Union Territory is and shall remain the property of the Government and any proprietary ownership, riparian or usage right on water resources vested in any individual, group of individuals shall be deemed to have been terminated and vested with the Government.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal stated this while dismissing a plea filed by the residents of the village Qasba Yar in district Shopian, seeking directions upon the administration not to change, divert or take any water from Yari Kohal, a river flowing through their village.
The villagers had stated that Yari Kohal is the sole source of irrigation for their agricultural land and the respondents, without any authority or valid reason, had initiated the construction of a diversion of Kohal through the Irrigation Division Shopian. Yari Kohal has limited water supply, which is only enough for the residents of Qasba Yar village, they argued.
Settling the controversy, Justice Rajesh Oswal said, “Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010 clearly prescribes that every water source in the State is property of the Government and any proprietary ownership, riparian or usage right on such water resources vested in any individual, group of individuals or any other body, corporation, company, society or community shall, from the date of commencement of the Act, be deemed to have been terminated and vested with the Government”.
Further, as per Section 4 of the Act of 2010, the Government has been vested with the responsibility to prepare the State Water Policy and Plan for the purpose of satisfying the demand of water for domestic use, agriculture, power, industry etc, High Court said, adding “it is the categoric stand of the respondents that the Dunaroo canal was adopted by the respondents in the year 1989-90 and same is being revived with the funding and approval of the Central Government”.
Justice Oswal further said, “the canal is being revived for the benefit of the other villages as well. The petitioners have no vested right to demand any particular amount of water, particularly when the respondents have already determined the requirement of different villages, as such, the action of the respondents for reviving the canal in order to cater to the needs of other villages cannot be termed as illegal, unauthorized and without any justification”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel