Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mandala Gangunaidu And Ors. vs Palavalasa Gopinaidu And Ors. on 21 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(3)ALD548, 2007(4)ALT34
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 42 of 1988, in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Parvatipuram, filed this second appeal, against the judgment rendered by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Parvatipuram, in A.S. No. 22 of 1993, reversing the one, rendered by the trial Court.
2. The plaintiffs are the ayacutdars of an extent of Ac. 17-00 of wet land of Chinamerangi Village of Vizianagaram District. A minor irrigation tank, by name Sivvalavani Inam tank, used to be the source of irrigation. Respondents 1 to 8 are the ayacutdars of the land under another tank in the neighbourhood, by name Jagannadha Sagar. The appellants filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents 1 to 8, from using the water from Sivvalavani tank, for irrigating their lands. It was pleaded that though the respondents do not have any land in the recognized ayacut of the said tank, they were forcibly and unlawfully drawing the water from it. The 9th respondent herein i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Collector, was also impleaded as defendant No. 10 in the suit.
3. Respondents 1 to 8 filed the written statement, stating inter alia that the ayacut under the two tanks referred to above, and vast extents of other lands, became the command area of a medium irrigation project, by name Vattigedda Reservoir Project Scheme (Project), and in that view of the matter, the appellants cannot treat Sivvalavani tank, as a source of irrigation, exclusively for their lands. Almost on the same lines, the 9th respondent herein filed a written statement. A plea of non-compliance with Section 80 C.P.C. was also raised.
4. Through its judgment, dated 11.8.1993, the trial Court decreed the suit, overruling the objection as to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC. Respondents 1 to 8 filed A.S. No. 22 of 1993, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Parvatipuram. The appeal was allowed, through judgment dated 6.3.1995. Hence, this second appeal.
5. Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court, mainly on the ground that the appellants did not comply with Section 80 CPC, vis-a-vis the 9th respondent, and that in view of the fact that no specific relief was claimed against the latter, the view taken by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. He further contends that it has come in the evidence that two separate channels are dug, for irrigating the lands of the appellants, on the one hand, and those of the respondents 1 to 8, on the other hand, and that the feeder channel, which was meant to feed Sivvalavani Tank, was not dug completely.
6. Sri V. Ch. Naidu, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 8, on the other hand, submits that whatever may have been the nature of rights of the appellants before the irrigation system was reorganized in the area, once all the lands became part of the command area, under the Project, the very basis for their claim ceased to exist. He contends that the relief to be granted in the suit, mainly depended upon the nature of stand to be taken by the 9th respondent, and in that view of the matter, the failure in issuing notice under Section 80 CPC was fatal.
7. The trial Court framed necessary issues, taking into account the pleadings of the parties. On behalf of the appellants, P Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of respondents, Dws-1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-3 were filed. The trial Court rejected the plea as to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, on the ground that the 9th respondent herein was almost formal party to the suit, since no specific relief was claimed against it. On facts, it found that the appellants had exclusive right to irrigate their lands with the water from Sivvalavani Tank. The lower appellate Court reversed the said finding.
8. This Court is of the view that the appellants did not claim any specific relief against the respondent No. 9, and the purpose of impleading the respondent No. 9 was to enable, or rather compel it, to place relevant record before the Court. In a way, it can be said that the appellants have chosen to implead the 9th respondent, than to summon him as a witness, to produce the relevant record. From the nature of relief claimed in the plaint, it cannot be said that the 9th respondent was a necessary party. In that view of the matter, the suit cannot be said to be defective, on the ground that notice under Section 80 CPC was not issued to it.
9. It is not in dispute that the recognized ayacut of Sivvalavani tank is Ac. 17-00, and that the entire land belongs to the appellants. If the same situation were to continue, there would not have been any difficulty, in sustaining the decree, granted by the trial Court. However, it has come on record that vast extent of area in the locality was brought under the irrigation through the Project. With the feeding the water from the Project into Sivvalavani Tank, it undergone substantial change, and the tank came to be transformed, from an exclusive source of irrigation, to a small reservoir, in the irrigation system under the project.
10. Whenever the irrigation projects of fairly large size are brought into existence and the existing minor irrigation tank, together with the ayacut, becomes part of the command area, an altogether regime comes into existence. The feeder canals will continue to fill the minor irrigation tank, and correspondingly, the water has to be taken further to irrigate the lands over and above the recognized ayacut of the tank. Though it is pleaded that the feeder channel to the said tank was not completely dug, it became evident that the water flows and reaches the said tank, beyond the point, up to which the canal was formed.
11. At any rate, the appellants do not complain that they are not receiving sufficient water to irrigate their lands. Once they receive adequate water to irrigate their lands, it should not be the matter of their concern, as to whether the water through the said tank is utilized in irrigating any other lands. The lower appellate Court had taken the correct view of the matter, and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.
12. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.