1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is a farmer having agricultural land to an extent of 5.820 Acres at Dimla Mouza under Jeypore Tahasil vide Khata No.32/23, Plot No.26/197 and Plot No.2 and paying water tax for the said land to OP.3 regularly.  It is submitted that the complainant started agricultural operation but the land covered Khata No.32/23 was not supplied with water for Ravi crop for which the complainant suffered mental agony and pecuniary loss.  It is further submitted that the complainant approached the Ops and also filed written complaint to OP.1 but the Ops did not pay any heed to the grievance of the complainant and as such the complainant suffered huge loss of Rs.1.50 lacs from the production of paddy.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs towards loss and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter in joint and contended that the alleged land bearing Khata No.32/23 is situated at a distance of about 200 meters on right side of the canal i.e. Tankua Sub Minor and the agricultural operations are usually made by the petitioner and other farmers of that area by maintaining the field channels adjacent to the outlets of the respective canal at their own costs.  The Ops maintain the Sub Minor Canal and makes the irrigation successful for the canal up to tail end ensuring sufficient quantum of water at the outlet point.  As such the onus is not on the department to irrigate the petitioner’s land.  It is further contended that on the application of the complainant to OP.1 to make good the water course/field channel which passes through the private land, the field officials of the department inspected the alleged site and found no fault of the department and the complainant was advised to make necessary renovation works before the commencement of Ravi irrigation.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP.3 in spite of notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the complainant at length and perused the materials on record for orders.

4.                     The complainant in this case stated that he paid the water tax to the Govt. for Khata No.32/23, Plot No.26/197 and Plot No.2 but the said land was not supplied with water for cultivation for which he sustained loss.  The Ops 1 & 2 in their counter stated that the plots of the complainant under Khata No.32/23 is situated at a distance of about 200 meters on the right side of the canal i.e. Tankua Sub Minor and the agricultural operations are usually made by the complainant and other farmers of the area by maintaining field channels adjacent to the out lets of the canal at their own costs and the Department maintains Sub Minor Canal and make the irrigation successful in the canal up to  tail end ensuring sufficient quantum of water at the out let point.  So onus is not on the department to irrigate the land of the complainant.  It is further stated that on the application of the complainant, the officers of the department visited the site and found no fault of the department and the complainant was advised to make necessary renovation works.

5.                     From the above facts it was ascertained that the complainant nowhere stated that the Ops did not supply water through canal for Ravi Crop and as such he sustained loss in spite of paying the water tax.  It is also ascertained that the Ops maintain Sub Minor Canal to make the irrigation successful up to tail end ensuring sufficient quantum of water.  No independent affidavit has been filed by any farmer of the adjacent plots stating that no sufficient water has been supplied by the Ops for Ravi crop.  Moreover, it is the duty of farmers to maintain the field channels to fetch water to their respective fields.  The documents filed by the Ops clearly show that repair and renovation works of the canal are being undertaken for safe dispatch of water in the canal.  In the above circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6.                     Further it is a settled principle of law that the Government in supplying water for irrigation is performing statutory and sovereign functions which cannot be termed as service within the meaning of the Act.  Hence the complainant is not the consumer of the Ops in relation to supply of water for irrigation purpose by the complainant.

7.                     In view of the above facts and circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service and moreover the complainant is not the consumer of the Ops.  Therefore, we find no merit in the case of the complainant and hence it is to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)