Norman Macleod, C J

[1] The plaintiff filed this suit to recover damages for the alleged wrongful failure of the officers of Government in charge of the water supply to give a sufficient supply of water to his Survey Numbers during the years 1916 to 1918. Under Section 35 of the Bombay Irrigation Act VII of 1879, the holder of land may apply to the Collector for compensation for any loss arising out of such interruption provided that such interruption does not come under Section 31, Clause (d). This case cannot come under Section 31(d) and, if it did, compensation could not be awarded; but the person suffering loss might be entitled to such remission of water rate payable by him as might be authorised by the Governor in Council. If there is loss, under Section 35 the holder of land may present a petition for compensation to the Collector, and the Collector, after consulting the canal officer, shall award to the petitioner reasonable compensation for such loss.

[2] Under Section 36 the decision of the Collector either under Section 34 or 35 as to the amount of the compensation to be awarded shall be final, unless there is an appeal to a higher authority, in which case the decision of the higher authority shall be conclusive. These words, in my opinion, show that it was intended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts should be ousted, so that the holder of land should not be entitled to bring a suit, similar to the present one, for compensation for loss alleged to have arisen out of interruption to the supply of water to his lands. It seems to me that this was the obvious intention of the Legislature. Otherwise numerous suits might be filed by cultivators dissatisfied with the operations of the irrigation officers, though questions which arise between cultivators and irrigation officers, are clearly questions which in the first instance must be dealt with by the officers in charge of irrigation operations on the spot, and then in appeal by the revenue officers. That being, in my opinion, the intention of the Legislature, I think it has been given effect to by the words used. Therefore I think that the jurisdiction of the Courts is ousted and the decision of the Court below was right. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Shah, J.

[3] I think it is clear that the compensation which the plaintiff claims if it falls under Section 31, proviso Clause (d) cannot be allowed at all except the amount, if any, claimed by way of remission of water rates under the last paragraph of that proviso But his claim is not for such remission, but for compensation. He is not entitled to such compensation so far as it falls under Clause (d) of the proviso. But if it does not fall under Clause (d) of the proviso to Section 31, it is clear that his claim is one which would fall under Section

35. The claims falling under that section are to be dealt with by the Collector, or by the higher officer to whom an appeal would lie under the rules framed, and the decision of that officer is conclusive. The effect of that provision, in my opinion, is to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of such claims. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not ousted in terms; but in view of the scheme of the Act and the special procedure laid down for compensation for interruption to the supply of water to any land irrigated by a canal, it seems to me that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is ousted. In either case the result is that the plaintiff s claim must fail.