Open remand and reservoir water drawal determine assessment scope and liability to water rate under irrigation law.

An open and unqualified remand permits the authority to examine all issues arising in the assessment, not just the specific factual point identified in earlier proceedings. The text also explains that water drawn from a point found within a Government reservoir falls within an irrigation work under the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959, including the reservoir area and land occupied for that purpose, and is therefore liable to water rate. On the facts discussed, the challenge to restriction of enquiry and the challenge to levy at penal rates both failed in light of the statutory scheme and concurrent factual findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after an open remand, the Irrigation Officer was confined to deciding only whether the intake point lay within the Hirakud reservoir; (ii) whether the appellant's drawal of water from the disputed point fell within an irrigation work or reservoir under the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959, so as to attract liability to water rate.

Issue (i): Whether, after an open remand, the Irrigation Officer was confined to deciding only whether the intake point lay within the Hirakud reservoir.

Analysis: The remand order set aside the earlier assessment and directed a re-enquiry and disposal without limiting the scope of enquiry to a single factual question. Once the entire order had been set aside and the remand was not restricted, the authority was entitled to examine all issues arising in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The contention that the enquiry was limited only to the location of the intake point was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's drawal of water from the disputed point fell within an irrigation work or reservoir under the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959, so as to attract liability to water rate.

Analysis: The authorities consistently found that the intake point lay below 630 R.L. within the reservoir area and that water was being drawn from a Government source. The statutory definition of irrigation work was read broadly to include the reservoir area and the land occupied for the purpose of the reservoir. On that basis, water drawn from a point within the reservoir, whether flowing or stagnant, was held to be water supplied from an irrigation work and therefore liable to water rate. The challenge to levy at penal rates also failed in view of the concurrent factual findings and the statutory scheme empowering assessment of water rate for Government sources.

Conclusion: The drawal of water was held to be from within the reservoir and an irrigation work, and liability to water rate was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the assessment of water rate was sustained, with each party directed to bear its own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remand is open and unqualified, the authority on remand may examine all issues arising in the assessment, and water drawn from a point found to be within a Government reservoir constitutes drawal from an irrigation work attracting water rate under the statute.

---