Skip to content


Seetamraju Kondalrow Vs. the Collector of Godavari on Behalf of the Secretary of State for India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad632
AppellantSeetamraju Kondalrow
RespondentThe Collector of Godavari on Behalf of the Secretary of State for India
Excerpt:
indian railway act - act ix of 1890, sections 7, 10, 11--compensation for damage caused by railway works--suit to enforce construction of a channel to irrigate land--maintainability. - - it is not suggested that the company acted beyond the powers conferred on them by section 7. if, as the result of the exercise of these powers, the plaintiff has sustained damage, he can recover compensation if he adopts the special procedure prescribed by section 10. the plaintiff, however, does not ask for compensation but says the railway company have failed to discharge the obligation imposed by section 11 (b) to make the necessary accommodation works and he asks the court to decide that such works shall be executed......his land. the railway company, in the execution of the works authorized by section 7 of the indian railway act, have, the plaintiff alleges, interfered with his right to the flow of water to his land. it is not suggested that the company acted beyond the powers conferred on them by section 7. if, as the result of the exercise of these powers, the plaintiff has sustained damage, he can recover compensation if he adopts the special procedure prescribed by section 10. the plaintiff, however, does not ask for compensation but says the railway company have failed to discharge the obligation imposed by section 11 (b) to make the necessary accommodation works and he asks the court to decide that such works shall be executed. under the english railway clauses act 8 vict., cap. 20,.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff apparently asks for a decree directing the defendants to construct a new channel for the purpose of irrigating his land. The Railway Company, in the execution of the works authorized by Section 7 of the Indian Railway Act, have, the plaintiff alleges, interfered with his right to the flow of water to his land. It is not suggested that the Company acted beyond the powers conferred on them by Section 7. If, as the result of the exercise of these powers, the plaintiff has sustained damage, he can recover compensation if he adopts the special procedure prescribed by Section 10. The plaintiff, however, does not ask for compensation but says the Railway Company have failed to discharge the obligation imposed by Section 11 (b) to make the necessary accommodation works and he asks the Court to decide that such works shall be executed. Under the English Railway Clauses Act 8 Vict., cap. 20, differences as to the sufficiency of accommodation works are decided by two Justices (see Sections 69 and 70). But the wording of Section 11 of the Indian Act makes it clear that the Indian Legislature intended that the opinion of the executive, with reference to the sufficiency of accommodation works, should be final.

2. We must hold the plaintiff has no right of action.

3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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