PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 7 Caveator.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that despite the decree dated 23.5.2002, in favour of the appellant by which the respondents were directed to make available water for irrigation after holding inquiry about the existence of the garden situated in the said areas after looking into the availability of the water. If the grievance of the appellant is only of not providing water despite the decree, this cannot be a ground to even prefer appeal.
(3.) IT appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for injunction on the ground that on the assurance of the respondent, Irrigation Department of the State, the appellant converted his agricultural land into horticulture garden. The assurance of the Irrigation Department was that the department will provide four times water than the ordinarily made available water for irrigation to the cultivators. According to the plaintiff -appellant, the appellant has right to demand water four times than the water made available to other cultivators for other crops. The Trial Court after trial, passed the decree and directed the defendant -respondent Department to see that if the horticulture garden is found on the land of the petitioner then the water may be made available to the appellant after taking care of the availability of water.;