LexY. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Swami Motor Trans- port (P) Ltd. v. Sri Sankaraswa~ migal Mutt Subba Rao, J, 1'62 September, 26. 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. disposal of the . applications filed by them under s. 9 of the Principal Act could not be granted. . . In this view 1~ is not necessary to express our opm1on on the question whether the appellants, by reason of the specific stipulation in their lease deeds, would not be entitled to any relief even under the 1955 Act. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. One hearing fee. Appeals dismissed. Y. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBER DAYAL,jj.) Civil Procedure-Irrigation tank-ImprOIJing efficiency a/- Government proposing alteratfons-Suit w restrain Gavernmen~ If barred-Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949 (Mad. XIX of 1949), ss. 3, 4-Madras Irrigation Tanks (Im- provement) Rules, 1950, r. 5. The lands of village Gudur were irrigated by tanks which received water ·from the Venkatagiri river through the "Gudur anicut system". The Government proposed to make alterations in the Chennur anicut up the river for supplying water to the Chennur tank for irrigating lands of village Chennur. The residents of village Gudur filed a suit for a declaration that the Government had no right to alter or extend or add to the Lhennur anicut over the river, and stated in the plaint that it was not necessary to ask for a permanent injunction as the Government was bound to give effect to the declaration granted by the Court. Held, that the suit was barred by s. 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949. Section 4 provided 1 S.C.R. SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS 309 that no court shall entertain any suit for an injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on Government by s. 3. Section 3 empowered the Government to "raise the full tank level of any tank or to take any other measures for increasing its capacity or efficiency". The proposed alterations were within s. 3 as they would increase the efficiency of the Chennur tank by making a larger supply of water available within the holding power of the tank. It was not correct to say that s. 3 only authorised improvements in the tank itself or in the supply cho.nnels from the tank but not in the anicut. Though the plaintiffs did not formally ask for an injunction, the suit, in effect, was one for an iajunction to restrain the Government from exercising its powers under s. 3. It is clear that the action proposed to be taken by Govern- ment was under the powers 15iven under s. 3. The mere fact that no notice as required by r. 5 specifying the nature of the improvement, its cost etc. was issued did not indicate that the action was not under s. 3 nor did it invalidate· the order pro- posing the improvement. The proposed action had not been taken when the suit was filed and there was still time to publish the notice. CIVIL APPELLATE juRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 614of1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1959, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad in Second Appeal No. 428 of 1959. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T.V.R. Tatachari, for the appellants. A. Ranganadham Chetty and P. D. Menon, for the respondent No. 1. 1962. September 26. The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by. S. K. DAS, J.-This is an· appeal by special leave and the short question for decision is the true scope and effect of .s. 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949 (Mad. XIX of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The section is in these terms :- "No Court shall entertain any suit or appli- cation for the issue· of an injunction to restrain 1952 r. Lakshminarayan1 &ddy v. 1k State of Andhra Pradesh Das,J. 1962 r. Lolcsliminarayana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Das, J. 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. the exercise of any powers conferred on the Government by section 3." The courts below have dismissed the suit brought by the appellants, holding on a preliminary issue that s. 4 aforesaid applies and the suit cannot be enter- tained. The question before us is, whether this finding is correct. We must first state the relevant facts. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the first court. They brought the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the ryots of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.