4. In reply, supporting the reasons given in the impugned
order and also the finding given by the learned single Judge,
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 6
submitted that if the argument advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that the seventh respondent cannot
be permitted to take water from the appellant's village, for the
simple reason that the appellant's village will be facing
scarcity of water, is accepted, then, tomorrow, the very same
appellant, in the event of facing scarcity of water in his
village, will not be able to take water from the neighbouring
village, as the appellant has miserably forgotten to appreciate
the philosophy of give and take. Today, if the water available
in the appellant's village is allowed to be taken by the seventh
respondent for cultivating the land belonging to him, tomorrow,
the agricultural produce going to be harvested by the seventh
respondent from his land is not going to be consumed by the
seventh respondent alone, but it is going to be used by all the
citizens. Therefore, when the groundwater available in one
village is allowed to be taken for the use of the same villagers
or the neighbouring villagers, that cannot be made as an issue
or subject matter of lis, because the second respondent, after
appreciating the case of the seventh respondent that his lands
situated in the neighbouring village could not be utilized for
any agricultural purpose due to the failure of monsoon, thought
it fit to impose multiple conditions, while passing the order
impugned in the writ petition, making it clear that breach of
any one of the conditions would result in the cancellation of
the permission granted to him. Therefore, the second respondent
and other official respondents are aware of the conditions and
they are also following upon the matter and as and when any
breach takes place to anyone of the conditions, they would take
appropriate action. Hence, no interference is called for with
the impugned order, he pleaded.
