Telangana High Court
Edla Kanaka Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 17 September, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ A.S.No.346 OF 2020
% 17--09--2025
# Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy
... Appellant
vs.
$ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, I&CAD,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ponnamm Mallaiah Goud
^Counsel for Respondents : Government Pleader
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Case referred:
1. (2020) 11 SCC 629
2/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
A.S.No.346 OF 2020
Between:
Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, I&CAD,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 17.09.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
A.S.NO.346 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.153 of 2016, dated 09.07.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff, respondents are the defendants in the suit (OS.No.153 of 2016).
3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,24,549/- against the respondents-defendants with interest @ 18% per annum.
4.1. The appellant-plaintiff is the Ex-Chairman of Water Users Association (herein after called as WUA), Veldi and executed works under Veldi Ayacut in Sri Ram Sagar Project (herein after called as SRSP), entered into contract with respondent No.4-defendant No.4 for the execution of 10 civil works.
4.2. The works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff through the agreements vide Col.No.4 of the Annexure in the plaint. The said agreements were concluded by and between the appellant-plaintiff and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 on behalf of the Government to execute the works. The appellant-plaintiff has commenced the work 4/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 with an intention to complete the same within the agreements period and has done the same without compromising in the quality and quantity. The in-charge Field Engineer was satisfied and recorded the measurements as per actuals, all the material supplied and works executed have been checked and measured by the competent Engineers. The Government in their Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/A1/2010-22, dated 28.04.2011 and 3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011, after the lapse of about 3 years from the date of execution, instructions have been imparted to inspect the works. The fact of the matter is that the works have been executed and recorded in different Measurement Books (herein after called as MBs) during 2008-09 itself. The in-charge Field Officers concerned have recorded the measurements.
4.3. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I, Hyderabad has formulated inspection teams for Civil and Mechanical works involving the team of Engineers working under other than the Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, Stage-I, Hyderabad. The civil works are 12 in number, they have been executed to the best satisfaction of the departmental authorities. Works were measured and checked by the competent authority and also by Superintending Engineers of other circle. The quality control authorities have also inspected the works and no remarks were raised, they were satisfied with the execution of works. The Government in their Memo No. 5/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011 issued guidelines regarding making payment to WUAs. As per Para No.2 of the said Government Memo, two foremost conditions have to be satisfied for making payments i.e., a) Existence of a bonafide agreement (b) work executed as per the agreement conditions. 100% verification has been done by the Team of Engineers and the conditions were satisfied in respect of all the civil works executed by the appellant-plaintiff. The conditions stipulated at Para Nos.10 and 11 of the Government Memo, in fact applies where the recorded measurements were often found to be incredulous, but not to credulous measurements. Superintendent Engineer and Quality control authorities were satisfied with the measurements recorded in the M-books. Restriction of payment to 50% and 70% is void ab initio and violative of constitutional provisions. The amounts recovered from the work, bills of other works are illustrated in the statements annexed to the plaint and the amounts worked out for 12 civil works is Rs.6,24,549/- which needs to be refunded to the appellant-plaintiff as the recovery is illegal. 4.4. The amounts recovered by the respondents-defendants from the appellant-plaintiff is manifestly illegal and patently arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, hence the respondents-defendants are liable to refund the recovered amount with interest @ 18% per annum. Appellant-plaintiff has got issued a legal notice to the respondents-defendants on 07.07.2015 but they 6/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 failed to give reply. As per the provisions contained in the special conditions of contract, the claims above Rs.50,000/- in value shall be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by Arbitration and the value of the suit is above Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are located at L.M.D. Colony, Thimmapur (M), Karimnagar District which is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.
5. Respondent No.4-defendant No.4 has filed his written statement which is adopted by respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendant Nos.1 to 3. Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission initiated action on the basis of Writ Petition No.15126 of 2009 which in turn lead to Departmental Enquiry. Inspection team inspected their work on the basis of V & E in their Appraisal Note No.13, dated 05.02.2010. Appellant-plaintiff was entrusted with 12 works and 10 works are only executed by the Agency. The recoveries are made as per 100% verification report submitted by the team and the same is communicated to the Government for payment. Measurements were randomly made by all the Engineering staff to the satisfaction on the existence of bonafide agreement and executed as per the agreement conditions with the applied team deduction in the Measurement Books which were recommended for payment by the Government. The recoveries were made based on the Government Memos. G.Vasanth Reddy filed 7/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 WP.No.15126 of 2009, seeking enquiry on the irregularities in the works executed under SRSP. The Vigilance Enquiry in their appraisal Report No.13, dated 05.02.2010, while submitting the report, advised the department to conduct detailed enquiry in all the maintenance works executed in between 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10. The appellant-plaintiff and other contractors who executed SRSP maintenance works for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are well aware of the enquiries and proposed recoveries by the 100% verification team which were effected for the above works before payment and the same is accepted by the appellant-plaintiff in M-Book, hence, the plaintiff has no moral right for insisting prior Notice. The recoveries are made as per the 100% Verification Team and Report, accepted and communicated by the Government for payment and prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The following issues are framed by the learned Trial Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?
2. To what relief?
7. Appellant-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. One G.Srinivas is examined as DW.1 on behalf of respondent No.4-defendant No.4 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
8. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents thereon, has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff.
8/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the case in a proper prospective, failed to look into the departmental rules and was influenced by the Government Department, wrongly dismissed the suit. Appellant has filed details of the works done under the agreement and Ex.B2 Measurement No.972/B, which shows the details of measurements of works executed by the appellant-plaintiff. Respondents-defendants admitted in the written statement at Para No.3 about the contents of the Annexure annexed to the plaint and at Para No.5 they admitted that there is no dispute with regard to the quality and quantity and they illegally recovered Rs.6,24,549/- from the appellant-plaintiff without any consent and not even attested the corrections made by the respondents-defendants as required under Para 294 of PWD, Accounts code and Article 175 (6) of Financial code. 9.2. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of DW.1 and ought to have looked into Ex.B1. Appellant counsel further submitted that measurements were recorded on 28.06.2009 whereas the recovery is effected by BTR No.211, dated 10.05.2013 as against the defect liability period of one year as per clause 28 of TDSS r/w GOMS No.94 I & CAD dated 01.07.2003 and the alleged recovery is far late after the completion of defect liability period which is void ab initio but the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit. The Trial Court ought to have seen that when G.Vasanth Reddy has filed WP.No.15126 9/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 of 2009 challenging the specific action of awarding works on nomination basis to ineligible persons but no where it is mentioned in the Writ Petition regarding quality and quantity of works executed and the Writ Petition came to be dismissed. The Trial Court has not appraised the weight of evidence produced by the appellant-plaintiff with that of Ex.B2-Measurement Book Record. There is no iota of evidence in the Vigilance Enquiry Report No.13 dated 05.10.2010 as no remarks are made against works executed by the appellant- plaintiff, the burden of proof lies on the respondents-defendants to produce the enquiry report but the appellant-plaintiff is not responsible for the unknown enquiry report. The corrections made by the respondents-defendants are not been attested by any Officer as required under Para 294 of the PWD, Accounts code and Article 175 (6) of the Financial code. The Trial Court erred in saying that the tenure of Water Users Association President is completed in 2010 and the present suit is filed in the year 2016. The total amount as per Measurement Book Record is paid as per Ex.B2, the amount recovered is at Page No.33 vide BTR No.211, dated 10.05.2013. Order II Rule 2
(i) of CPC says "every suit shall include the whole claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of cause of action" and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submits that the Association has entered into agreement with the Government and 10/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 in the year 2013, Government has recovered Rs.6,24,549/- basing on 100% verification report submitted by the team, no interference is called for, prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed his written arguments in the form of Abstract and also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivnarayan (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Maniklal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others 1.
12. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.
13. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned judgment passed in OS.No.153 of 2016 by Principle Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, dated 09.07.2019 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?
14. The learned Trial Court in its judgment at Para No.23 observed that the appellant-plaintiff failed to challenge the enquiry report and ought to have sought the relief of declaration which is interlinked with the relief of recovery of money, thereby the suit is not maintainable. It is no body's case and the Trial Court has travelled beyond the pleadings, the same is not sustainable.
1
(2020) 11 SCC 629
11/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
15. It is not the case of the respondents-defendants that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit but the Trial Court without any pleadings arrived and discussed in Para No.24 of its judgment that the tenure of the appellant-plaintiff was completed in the year 2010 and the present suit is filed in the year 2016, at the time of filing the suit, he was not a President and that PW.1 (appellant herein-plaintiff) did not obtain any authorization letter from the Members of the Association and directly filed the suit and the suit is not maintainable. The said finding is against the pleadings of the parties, hence the same is not sustainable.
16. It is also not the case of the respondents-defendants that the suit is bad for joinder of cause of action. The observation of the Trial Court at Para No.25 of its judgment that suit for 10 different works is not maintainable and that the plaintiff failed to prove the reasons of joinder of cause of action, when looked into the cause of actions individually, this Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the case and that the suit is not maintainable for misjoinder of cause of action. The Trial Court has travelled beyond the pleadings, hence the observation in Para No.25 of the judgment is not sustainable, hence Shivnarayan case1 is not dealt with.
17. As the suit is filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the burden is on him to prove the same to recover the suit amount.
12/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
18. Ex.A2 is the legal notice, dated 07.07.2015 got issued by the appellant-plaintiff to respondent Nos.1 to 4-defendant Nos.1 to 4 wherein it is stated that Water Users Association Chairman, Veldi have executed certain civil works in Division No.4 of GVC-IV, LMD Colony, Karimnagar under the administrative control of the Administrator-cum- Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I, Hyderabad during the year 2008-09 wherein all the works have been checked by the competent authority and also payments were made as per the recorded measurements. The Government has issued Memos vide Exs.A4 and A5 after the lapse of 4 years and the civil works are 10 in number which have been executed to the satisfaction of the Departmental Authorities for Rs.5,97,845/- which needs to be refunded to the plaintiff as the recovery is illegal.
19. It is mentioned in the plaint that the appellant-plaintiff and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 entered into contract for execution of 10 civil works shown in the Annexure. On perusal of the Annexure to the plaint which statement shows the list of works from 2008-09, 2009-10. Captioned as recovery statement of Sri E.Kanaka Reddy, Water Users Association (WUA President Wealthy) wherein he has shown 12 works and the amount recovered shown therein is Rs.6,24,549/- which is the suit amount, but Ex.A2 legal notice shows with regard to 10 civil works and the amount recovered is Rs.5,97,845/-. It is the plaintiff who has to explain how he is entitled 13/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 to recover Rs.6,24,549/-. Ex.B1 is the agreement No.AB No.291/EE/Divn.No.4/GVC.4/DB/2008-09 dated 19.01.2009. The nature of work is Estimate for filling Pot Holes, Rain Gullies & forming Embankment on L/S Bank for 1R of 3LA of DBM-6 of Kakatiya Canal under WUA Veldhi-I. The estimated amount with sanction reference is Rs.3,17,000/-. Value of work to be done as per the agreement rate is Rs.3,02,541/-. Contract is entered between Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation and Command Area Department and the name of the agency/contractor is Edla Kanaka Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy, R/o. Veldhi, President Water User Association, Veldhi-I of Manakondur Mandal. A schedule is annexed to Ex.B1 which says Estimate for filling Pot Holes, Rain Gullies & forming Embankment. The probable quantity is 6912.500 Sq.meters and 2328.355 cum. The total amount shown is Rs.3,02,541/-.
20. As per Ex.A1, reference to agreement number and date are mentioned in Column No.4; amount is shown in Column No.5; M.B.No. is shown in Column No.6; Number of Bills paid is shown in Column No.7; Amount paid as per M.B. is shown in Column No.8; Recovery amount is shown in Column No.20. Nine (9) Agreements are dated 18.01.2009 for different kinds of works with different agreement numbers. Three (3) agreements are dated 28.02.2009 with different agreement numbers which are shown in column No.3 of Ex.A1.
Column No.2 is name of work. It is worth mentioning that Ex.B1
14/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
agreement is in respect of Item No.5 of Ex.A1. The total recovered amount as per Ex.A1 is Rs.6,24,549/-.
21. Ex.A4 is the instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation and C.A.D. dated 28.04.2011 in Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-2022) where in Para No.2 it is stated that after examination of the report of ACE, SRSP Stage-I and the representations of WUAs, it has been decided to take up 100% verification of the works of SRSP Stage-I executed by the WUAs to assess the quality and quantity of the works for the purpose of preparing proposals for making payments to the farmer's organizations.
22. Ex.A5 is the Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26 dated 16.06.2011 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation and C.A.D. guide lines are issued for processing the payments in respect of O&M works taken up during the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 in SRSP Stage-I. Guideline Nos.1, 2, 3, 10, 11 and 13 are as under:
1. The cardinal requirement for processing the payments in respect of any work, in relaxation of G.O.Ms.No.46 of I&CAD (General.IV) Department dated 24.02.2007, shall be: A) Existence of a bonafide agreement B) Work executed as per the agreement conditions.
2. No payment shall be processed if the work in question does not satisfy the above conditions. Thus, works wherein agreements were concluded by the parties not competent to do so, and works where the dates of agreements were 15/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 anterior to the dates of purchase of the stamp paper, shall not be processed.
3. Works where fraudulent practices were noticed, such as recording of physically non-existent works, duplicate recording of the same work, works where M-Book recordings are incomplete/disjointed/or were tampered with or altered, shall be summarily rejected.
10. In case of jungle clearance too, processing of payments needs to be restricted to realistic quantities since the recorded quantities were often found to be incredulous. The teams therefore shall verify the site, and shall allow only up to a maximum of 50% of the recorded quantities for the purpose of processing of payments.
11. In respect of the works related to laying of inspection paths/gravel filling etc., the site shall be verified in the first instance and processing of payments shall be restricted to a maximum of 70% of the quantities recorded in the "M"
Books.
13. Each WUA/Agency shall be taken as an individual unit for processing payments. Fraudulent works, if any, shall be listed WUA/Agency wise. Payments processed by the inspection teams in case of each WUA/Agency, shall be adjusted against the payments already made, and the amounts recoverable on account of fraud. The final payment due shall accordingly be arrived at".
23. Ex.A6 is the information obtained by the appellant-plaintiff under Right to Information Act, dated 08.09.2016. Enclosure to Ex.A6 is with regard to MB No.972/B captioned as First and Final Bill and the 16/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 total value of the work done is Rs.2,12,179/-, after standard deduction a cheque for Rs.1,51,831/- is issued to the appellant-plaintiff on 16.08.2013; MB No.966/B shows that total value of the work done is Rs.2,15,938/- and an amount of Rs.61,400/- is deducted towards standard deductions, and an amount of Rs.1,54,508/- by way of cheque dated 16.08.2013; MB No.777/B is also an another bill, the total value of the work done is Rs.1,10,481/-, standard deductions are Rs.26,984/-, Net amount paid is Rs.83,497/-. Another bill is in respect of MB No.975/B, the total value of the work done is Rs.43,325/- and the deduction is Rs.5,748/- and the amount paid by way of cheque is Rs.37,577/- vide dated 16.08.2013; MB No.803/B, total value of the work is Rs.2,06,809/- and the deductions are Rs.47,899/- and payment made is Rs.1,58,910/- by way of cheque dated 18.07.2009, MB No.802/B, total value of the work is Rs.2,04,423/- and the deductions are Rs.47,287/- and amount paid by way of cheque is Rs.1,57,136/- vide dated 18.07.2009; MB No.776/B, total value of the work is Rs.71,109/- and the deductions are Rs.6,298/- and amount paid by way of cheque is Rs.64,811/- dated 18.07.2009; Another enclosure to Ex.A6 states that "as per the team leader Enquiry Report submitted by the team leader and accepted by the Government vide Memo No.3697/sec-VII (V&E) A1/2010-40 dated 20.03.2013 amount as per verification is Rs.40,836/-, final bill paid as per MB is Rs.71,109/- recovery is to be made is Rs.30,273/-. There are lots of corrections to the enclosures of Ex.A6.
17/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
24. Appellant-plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that there are separate agreements for each work as per Ex.A1, he further stated that he has filed the present suit for Rs.6,00,000/- and odd and he has not specifically mentioned in the pleadings with regard to nature of each work and he cannot say how he has arrived to an amount of Rs.6,24,549/- and the works carried are as per column No.2 in Ex.A1.
25. The evidence of respondent No.4 as DW.1 is that altogether 12 works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff and they have deducted the amount as per the enquiry report and the works are by way of separate agreements, recorded separately in MB and the amounts were paid as per the Measurement Book Records. In his cross-examination he stated that as per Article 175 (6) of the Financial code, the check measurement were done with an intention to find out the irregularities and defects in the work, the Quality Control Unit will randomly check up the total work and after making the entire verification, the record will be handed over to the Department, after furnishing the record the watch and ward will be done by the Department only and two years liable period is there as per the agreement, as per GOMS No.94 for original works, the defect liability period is of two years and in case of maintenance works the period is one year and in the present case, the work was done in the year 2008-09 and they have deducted the amount basing on GOMS 18/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 No.3697 dated 16.06.2011, the Government has issued Memos and basing on the Memos they have deducted the amount. In the year 2009, the work satisfactory report was issued to the appellant-plaintiff by the Department and the contractor issued release and discharge certificate. After completion of the work and till the recovery of the amount the water circulation work was in proper manner and they have admitted in their written statement about the recovery of amount in Para No.3 without prejudice to the other submissions and the Annexure is not denied.
26. As admitted by the appellant-plaintiff that each work is followed by separate agreements which is fortified with Ex.A1 wherein the agreement numbers were mentioned in column No.4. Appellant- plaintiff has not filed the copies of the agreement for the works done by him as per column No.2 of Ex.A1. Except Ex.B1, appellant has failed to plead and prove the works carried out by them as per Column No.2 of Ex.A1. Material particulars are missing in the pleadings and the Government has deducted the amounts shown in Ex.A1 i.e., Rs.6,24,549/-. In Ex.A6, different MB numbers are mentioned for the works carried out by the appellant-plaintiff and it is the plaintiff who has to plead and prove when the works were completed. Plaint is vague and silent with regard to the works done by the appellant- plaintiff as per Ex.A1. In Ex.A1 from column No.9 to 20, the recovery amounts were mentioned therein under different heads. It is worth 19/17 BRMR,J AS.No.346_2020 mentioning that it is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he has done only 10 works as per Ex.A2, and the same is also mentioned in Para No.3 of the plaint and shown 12 works in Para No.8.
27. Appellant-plaintiff has to prove his case and he failed to establish the same. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the parties and rightly dismissed the suit. This Court is of the view that the judgment does not require interference of this Court and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
28. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed without costs.
Miscellaneous application/s if any, stands closed.
_________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 17th September, 2025.
PLV