VOHRA SADIKBHAI RAJAKBHAI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 10-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(20 l 6] 2 S.C.R. 772 
VOHRA SADIKBHAI RAJAKBHAI & ORS. 
.v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1866of2016) 
MAY 10, 2016. 
[A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.J 
Compensation: 
Damage to private property - Claim for compensation - Release 
of 60, 000 cusecs of water from dam - Because of release of water. 
land of appellants with standing fruit bearing trees got submerged 
resulting in destruction of many trees - Whether the act of releasing 
the water from the dam amounted to negligence on the part of 
respondents or it was inevitable due to heavy rains and be treated 
as an 'act of God' - Held: It was incumbent upon the respondents 
to demonstrate, by adequate evidence, that the water in the dam 
was kept at reasonable and proper level to take care of normal 
rains; that the rains in the said monsoon season were more than the 
ordinary rains which could not be foreseen; and that the public 
purpose was served in taking the decision to release the water which 
prevented larger catastrophe - Merely by saying that the level of 
water in the dam increased because of monsoon rains and that the 
waler was released in public interest cannot be treated as discharging 
the burden on the part of the respondents in warding off the 
allegation of negligence - In view of the principle laid down in 
*Rylands v. Fletcher, onus was on the respondents to discharge 
such a burden, and it has miserably failed to discharge the same -
On that basis, there was a negligence on the part of the respondents 
which caused damage to the fields of the appellants - In exercise of 
power under Article 142 of the Constitution, damages awarded to 
the tune of Rs. 5, 00, 000 - Negligence. 
Quantum of damages - Determination of- Held: Where a wrong 
has been committed, the wrong-doer must stiffer from the impossibility 
of accurately ascertaining the amount of damages - Likewise, the 
party claiming compensation must give the best evidence to prove 
damages. 
772 
VOHRA SADIKBHAI RAJAKBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
773 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. Since the dam is constructed and maintained by 
the respondents and the appellants suffered losses as a result of 
release of water from the said dam, onus was on the respondents 
. to prove that they had taken proper care in maintaining appropriate 
level of water in the dam taking into account the provision for 
B 
the water that can get accumulated in the said dam due to the 
forthcoming rainy season. The respondents are the owners of 
· the dam in question. They are expected to keep the said dam in 
such a condition which avoids any loss or damage of any nature 
to the neighbours or passers by. The doctrine of strict liability, 
which has its origin in the case of •Rylands v. Fletclter will have · C 
application in the instant case. [Para 15) [781-B-D) 
State of Punjab v. Modern C1:1ltivators 1965 AIR 17 : 
1964 SCR 273; Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action 
v. Uni01.1 of India (1996) 2 .Scale 44; Kusuma Begum 
(Smt.) v. Tlte New India Assurance Co. Ltd. JT 2001 (1) 
D 
SC 37; Jay Laxmi Salt Works (PJ Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 
1994 (4) SCC l; S. Vedantacharya & Anr. v. Highways 
Departmeht of South Arcot & Ors. 1987 (3) SCC 400 -
relied on. 
*Rylands v. Fle;cher (1868) LR 3 HL 330; Rickards v. 
E 
Lothian (1913) AC 263; Read v. J. Lyons & Co (1947) 
AC 156 CHL); Nicholas v. Marsland (1875) LR 10 
Ex.255; Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway 
(1917) AC 556 (HL) - referred to. 
2. Wbat needs to be examined is as to whether the damage 
to the property of the appellant was the res.lilt .of an inevitable 
accident or unavoidable accident which could not possibly be 
prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill, i.e. 
it was an accident physically unavoidable. Undoubtedly, it came 
on record that the overflow of dani was occasioned by torrential 
and heavy rains. However, the appellants specifically pleaded that 
the respondent authorities did not keep the level of water in the 
dam sufficiently low to take care of the ensuing monsoon rains. 
They have, thus, set up the case that there was a negligence on 
the eart of the respondents in not taking care of the forthcoming 
monsoon season and keeping the water level in the dam at 
F 
G 
H 
774 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURf REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
sufficiently low level to absorb the rainfall which was going to 
rise the water level in the dam. The respondents have not refuted 
the sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.