Skip to content


Katragaddha Radakrishnayya Naidu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Kistna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1913)24MLJ678
AppellantKatragaddha Radakrishnayya Naidu
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Kistna
Cases ReferredBangayya Appa Bow v. The Secretary of State
Excerpt:
- - 66 it was held that the government were bound not to interfere with the facilities enjoyed by the inamdar for irrigating the extent of land mentioned in his inam pattah as mamool wet. 295 it is suggested that 'the admissions of the officers of the government 'might be good 'evidence of the suggested '(implied) 'engagement' between the government and the plaintiff that government should not interfere with the usual quantity of water supplied to the mamool area of wet lands. has there been an implied engagement between government and the inamdar to supply the inamdar with facilities for irrigation to the extent to which he enjoyed such facilities before his sources of supply to his mamool wet lands were interfered with by the government works?.....that an agreement between the collector and the plaintiff will not bind the government. but an implied engagement can be proved by the course of conduct followed for long by the government officers and by the plaintiff, and the subordinate judge was in error in stopping the plaintiff from letting in the whole of his evidence. in chidambara rao v. the seretary of state for india in council i.l.r. (1902) m. 66 it was held that the government were bound not to interfere with the facilities enjoyed by the inamdar for irrigating the extent of land mentioned in his inam pattah as mamool wet. in kandahuri mahalaksh-mammagaru v. the secretary of state for india i.l.r. (1902) m. 295 it is suggested that ' the admissions of the officers of the government ' might be good ' evidence of the.....
Judgment:

1. The Lower Courts are in error in holding that the Government can, under no circumstances, be bound not to interfere with the usual supply of government water to the plaintiff's lands, unless there was an express engagement with the Government. They are right in saying that an agreement between the Collector and the plaintiff will not bind the Government. But an implied engagement can be proved by the course of conduct followed for long by the Government officers and by the plaintiff, and the Subordinate Judge was in error in stopping the plaintiff from letting in the whole of his evidence. In Chidambara Rao v. The Seretary of State for India in Council I.L.R. (1902) M. 66 it was held that the Government were bound not to interfere with the facilities enjoyed by the Inamdar for irrigating the extent of land mentioned in his Inam pattah as mamool wet. In Kandahuri Mahalaksh-mammagaru v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1902) M. 295 it is suggested that ' the admissions of the officers of the Government ' might be good ' evidence of the suggested ' (implied) ' engagement' between the Government and the plaintiff that Government should not interfere with the usual quantity of water supplied to the mamool area of wet lands. Whether in a case where an engagement is proved, the Government could even then cut off the usual supply in pursuance of an alleged paramount right to regulate the supply of water in seasons of drought and to divert the water to irrigate other lands served by the same irrigation source, and whether such an alleged paramount right could only be effectual as between ryotvvari tenants and could not be held to overrule the right flowing from the engagement (express or implied) between an Inamdar or a Zamindar and the Government need not be finally decided just now., It is unnecessary also to refer at this stage, to the decision reported in Bangayya Appa Bow v. The Secretary of State for India : (1913)24MLJ680 as the learned Government Pleader wishes to be allowed an opportunity (if necessary) to make his observations on certain portions of the judgments pronounced in that case. The Lower Courts' decisions are reversed and the suit is remanded to the court of First instance for a fresh decision after recording findings on issues Nos. 2 to 6 and on the following further issues. 1st additional issue. Has there been an implied engagement between Government and the Inamdar to supply the Inamdar with facilities for irrigation to the extent to which he enjoyed such facilities before his sources of supply to his mamool wet lands were interfered with by the Government works? 2nd additional issue;.- Is such an engagement a qualified or an absolute one and, if qualified, to what extent?

2. Costs hitherto incurred will be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //