Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 614 of 1961

Decision Date: 26 September 1962

Coram: S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, A.K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal

In the matter titled Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others versus the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on 26 September 1962. The opinion was authored by Justice S. K. Das, who was joined by Justices J. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal. The petitioners were identified as Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy and several co‑plaintiffs, while the respondent was the State of Andhra Pradesh. The decision was recorded in the official law reports as 1965 AIR 580 and 1963 SCR (1) 308. The case concerned the interpretation of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949 (Mad. XIX of 1949), particularly sections 3 and 4, together with the related Rules of 1950, rule 5, and it involved a civil procedure question about whether a suit seeking to restrain the Government’s proposed alterations to an irrigation structure could be entertained.

The factual background centred on the village of Gudur, whose agricultural lands were irrigated by a system of tanks receiving water from the Venkatagiri River through what was known as the “Gudur anicut system”. The State government announced a plan to modify the Chennur anicut situated upstream, with the objective of directing a greater volume of water to the Chennur tank so that the fields of the neighbouring village of Chennur could be more effectively irrigated. In response, the inhabitants of Gudur instituted civil proceedings requesting a judicial declaration that the Government lacked authority to alter, extend or add to the Chennur anicut. Their plaint expressly indicated that they were not asking for a permanent injunction because they expected the Court’s declaration to bind the Government to refrain from carrying out the alterations. The Court held that the suit was barred by section 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949. Section 4 expressly provides that no court shall entertain any suit or application for an injunction intended to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the Government by section 3. Section 3 authorises 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 modifications to the Chennur anicut fell squarely within the scope of section 3 because they were intended to improve the efficiency of the Chennur tank by supplying a larger quantity of water within the tank’s holding capacity. The Court rejected the contention that section 3 only permitted improvements to the tank itself or to its supply channels, excluding the anicut. Although the plaintiffs did not formally seek an injunction, the effect of their suit was to request an injunction restraining the Government from exercising its powers under section 3, and therefore the suit was impermissible. The Court further observed that the absence of a notice required by rule 5, which would have set out the nature of the improvement and its cost, did not demonstrate that the proposed action lay outside section 3, nor did it invalidate the Government’s order proposing the improvement. At the time the suit was filed, the contemplated work had not yet been commenced and there remained an opportunity to publish the requisite notice. Consequently, the appeal, filed as Civil Appeal No. 614 of 1961 and taken up by special leave from the judgment dated 22 December 1959 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed.

In the year 1959 the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad delivered its judgment in Second Appeal number 428 of 1959. The learned counsel for the appellants were A V Viswanatha Sastri and T V R Tatachari, while the learned counsel for respondent number one were A Ranganadham Chetty and P D Menon. The appeal was heard on 26 September 1962 and the judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice S K Das. This proceeding arose by way of a special leave petition and the principal issue that required determination concerned the true scope and legal effect of section 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949 (Madras Act XIX of 1949), which the Court will hereinafter refer to simply as the Act. Section 4 of the Act is worded as follows: “No Court shall entertain any suit or application for the issue of an injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the Government by section 3.” The courts below had dismissed the suit filed by the appellants on the basis of a preliminary determination that section 4 applied and consequently the suit could not be entertained. The present Court was thus called upon to examine whether that preliminary finding was legally correct.

The first step was to set out the material facts upon which the suit was based. The appellants were the original plaintiffs in the trial court and they instituted the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the owners of lands situated in several villages whose agricultural fields were irrigated through what is locally identified as the “Gudur anicut system”. A small river, known as the Venkatagiri River, flows from west to east and subsequently turns southward, passing near the villages of Chennur, Gudur and others. Historically the appellants’ lands had been irrigated from four separate tanks. Three of those tanks obtained their water supplies from the Venkatagiri River via a channel that originated at the Gudur anicut at a location called Ananthamadugu. The fourth tank also derived its water from the same river but through a channel that began near the Pumbaleru anicut, which is situated further downstream. In addition to these arrangements, a distinct channel emanating from the Pumbaleru anicut directly irrigated approximately six hundred acres of land. Altogether, about four thousand acres of the appellants’ holdings were irrigated under the Gudur anicut system as described. The cultivators of Chennur, a village located higher up the river, possessed their own tank for irrigation. These cultivators repeatedly sought to obtain a share of the Venkatagiri River’s waters by proposing the construction of an anicut at a place called Gollapalli, roughly one mile upstream, so that a channel from that anicut could convey water to the Chennur tank. Their attempts in 1929‑1930 were unsuccessful, but they persisted. In 1935 the Madras Government issued Government Order number 2241/1 dated 16 October 1935 directing that an anicut be built at Gollapalli for the purpose of supplying water to the Chennur tank. The order also imposed safeguards to ensure that the water supply to the Gudur anicut system would not be adversely affected and that only surplus water, which would otherwise be wasted during the flood season, could be utilized for the benefit of the Chennur tank. The appellants objected to the scheme set out in that order, prompting further governmental investigation and the subsequent issuance of Government Order number 1161 dated 6 May 1939, which modified certain aspects of the earlier directive.

In the present dispute the appellants contested the plan set out in Government Order No. 2241/1 dated 16 October 1935, and the Government subsequently examined the matter. The Government later issued Government Order No. 1161 on 6 May 1939, which altered certain provisions of the earlier order. Pursuant to that 1939 order a masonry structure known as the Chennur anicut was erected in 1944; the particulars of that construction are recorded in Exhibit A‑6 and summarized in paragraph 11 of the plaint. While the Court does not need to revisit those particulars, it is necessary to note that the anicut comprised two distinct sections. The western “free” section measured 61 feet in length, whereas the “fixed” section measured approximately 11.4 feet. The free portion was required to be fully planked only when the river was in flood so that excess water could be diverted into the Chennur tank, and it was not to be planked until the Gudur anicut was itself “surplusing”. The appellants alleged that the ryots of Chennur failed to adhere to the arrangements established under Government Order No. 1161 of 6 May 1939 and again sought a larger allocation of water from the Venkatagiri river. According to the appellants, the State Government, without informing them, issued another order in 1952 that directed (i) an extension of the Chennur anicut by an additional 46 feet, (ii) the removal of all dam stones and planks and the construction of a permanent masonry wall over the entire 175‑foot crest, (iii) an increase in the height of that wall by three feet, and (iv) the installation of three vents equipped with screw‑gearing shutters to regulate flow through the anicut. The appellants contended that these modifications would seriously impair their established right to receive water from the Venkatagiri river under the Gudur anicut system and would effectively deprive them of water during periods of low flow and in the spring season. Consequently, the plaint prayed for a decree that (a) declared that the defendant had no authority, in the circumstances described, to alter, extend or add to the Chennur anicut situated over the Venkatagiri river at Gollapalli in any manner; (b) ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the suit; and (c) granted such further relief as the Court might deem appropriate in the circumstances. The plaint expressly stated that a permanent injunction was unnecessary because the defendant, identified as the State of Andhra Pradesh, would be bound to implement any declaration issued by the Court. Initially the State of Andhra Pradesh was the sole defendant; subsequently other parties, apparently ryots of Chennur, were joined as additional defendants. The foregoing provides a concise summary of the appellants’ case as set out in the plaint. A written statement was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, as well as by the fourth defendant, in

The State of Andhra Pradesh, in its written statement, asserted that the proposed alterations to the Chennur anicut would not cause any injury to the appellants’ rights and provided certain details regarding the river’s water flow at various times. The Court noted that it was not addressing the merits of those assertions and therefore would not examine those details. Subsequently, the State filed a supplemental written statement in which it contended that section 4 of the Act barred the suit from being entertained. This contention was taken up as a preliminary issue and was decided by the trial court in favor of the State. An appeal against that decision was made to the District Judge, which was dismissed, and a second appeal to the High Court was also dismissed.

The appellants raised four main points in support of their case. First, they argued that the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act are limited to making improvements to a tank as defined in section 2(d). Such improvements include, for example, raising the height, increasing the width, lengthening the embankment, or extending the bed of the tank, and may even include improving the supply channel, but they do not extend beyond those measures. They maintained that the State Government, in proposing alterations to the Chennur anicut, was seeking to do something beyond the powers conferred by section 3(1), and consequently section 4 could not be invoked as a bar to the suit.

Second, the appellants submitted that section 4 bars the entertainment of a suit for an injunction restraining the exercise of powers conferred by section 3(1). Since the present suit was not an injunction suit and the appellants had expressly stated that they were not seeking an injunction, they argued that section 4 therefore did not apply as a bar.

Third, the appellants asserted that the State Government did not act under section 3(1) when it issued Government Order Ms. 53 F. and A (F.P.) dated 15 February 1952. They pointed out that the State failed to issue a notice as required by rule 5 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Rules, 1050, and consequently the proposed action could not be said to fall within the scope of section 3(1). Accordingly, they contended that section 4 was inapplicable.

Fourth, the appellants argued that section 3(1) was ultra vires the Constitution, and that section 4 must therefore be read as falling within section 3. The Court indicated that it would now consider each of these points in turn.

In reviewing the earlier part of the judgment, the Court recalled the text of section 4 of the Act, noting that it is closely connected with subsection (1) of section 3. The Court then set out the language of subsection (1) of section 3, which provides: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Government shall have power to raise the full‑tank level of any tank or to take any other measures for increasing its capacity or efficiency, wherever it may be situated and whether it may be in a ryotwari, zamindari, inamdari or other area.” The Court observed that a brief reference to the preamble and other provisions of the Act would be useful in order to understand the object and purpose of the legislation.

The Court examined the preamble and several other provisions of the Act in order to determine the object and purpose of the legislation. The long title of the Act explicitly states that it is “to empower the State Government to increase the capacity and efficiency of irrigation tanks in the State of Madras.” The preamble reinforces this purpose by declaring, “Whereas it is expedient to empower the State Government to increase the capacity and efficiency of irrigation tanks in the State of Madras.” Section 2(d) defines the term “tank” to mean an irrigation tank situated within the State of Madras. Sections 3 and 4, which have already been quoted, follow this definition. Section 5 prescribes the manner in which compensation must be paid where, as a result of any action taken under Section 3, a landowner or property owner suffers loss or damage, including any reduction in the water supplied to land, to any tank, or to any other source of water. The amount of compensation is to be calculated in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 5. Section 6 authorises an appeal against an order of the Collector made under Section 5 to the Subordinate Judge’s court that has jurisdiction over the area where the damaged land or property is located. Section 7 empowers the government to make rules, and one such rule, namely Rule 5 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Rules, 1950, made under this authority, is slated for later consideration by the Court. In brief, the object of the Act is to increase the capacity and efficiency of irrigation tanks throughout the State of Madras, and Section 3(1) confers upon the State Government the power to take any measures necessary to achieve that increase, irrespective of whether the tanks are located in ryotwari, zamindari, inamdari, or any other type of landholding. The overarching purpose is clearly to expand the facilities available for irrigating agricultural lands from such tanks. The Court noted that there is no dispute that the Chennur tank, together with four other tanks from which the appellants obtain water for irrigating their lands, qualify as “irrigation tanks” within the meaning of the Act. The controversy therefore centres on the expression “to take any other measures for increasing its capacity or efficiency.” The Court held that the phrase “its capacity or efficiency” unquestionably refers to the capacity or efficiency of the specific irrigation tank in question, which in this case is the Chennur tank. The term “capacity,” as understood in ordinary diction, denotes “holding‑power” or “receiving‑power” and is dependent upon the cubic volume of the tank. Counsel for the respondent‑State conceded before the Court that the proposed alterations to the Chennur anicut do not augment the capacity of the Chennur tank. Nevertheless, the counsel argued forcefully that the same alterations would enhance the efficiency of the Chennur tank by enabling a larger supply of water to be made available.

The counsel for the State argued that the water made available by the proposed changes to the Chennur anicut would remain within the holding capacity of the Chennur tank. He asserted that there was no justification for a restrictive reading of section 3(1) that would limit improvement measures solely to the physical dimensions—such as width, breadth or depth—of the tank or its immediate supply channel. According to the State’s submission, if the alterations to the Chennur anicut result in a larger volume of water reaching the Chennur tank through its supply channel, then those measures unquestionably qualify as actions “for increasing the efficiency of the Chennur tank.” In contrast, the counsel for the appellants contended that the term “efficiency,” when read in the context of the definition clause in section 2(d), should be understood exclusively as the efficiency of water distribution from the tank itself. The same contentions had been raised before the High Court, where the learned Chief Justice observed, “The efficiency of a tank depends in a large measure upon the quantity of water that is available for irrigation purpose. Without sufficient volume of water, a tank could not fulfill the purpose for which it was dug. Therefore, it should have sufficient quantity of water to maintain its efficiency. To construe it in the manner suggested by the counsel for the appellants is to deprive these words of a part of their content.” The Supreme Court agreed with the Chief Justice’s reasoning. The appellants further maintained that only the Chennur tank and its supply channel could be subjects of improvement measures by the State, and that the Chennur anicut on the Venkatagiri River could not be included.

The Court rejected the appellants’ narrow construction of subsection 1 of section 3. It observed that the supply channel to the Chennur tank draws water from the Venkatagiri River and originates near the Chennur anicut. Consequently, if the supply channel fails to deliver sufficient water, the tank inevitably loses efficiency; conversely, an increase in water supply enhances the tank’s efficiency. The proposed alterations to the Chennur anicut are intended to augment the volume of water flowing through the supply channel to the tank, and therefore constitute measures aimed at improving the tank’s efficiency. The Court considered the question of how far upstream the State may act to improve the tank and concluded that any improvement must bear a direct and proximate relationship to the tank whose efficiency is to be enhanced. The State cannot pursue measures far up the river that lack such a direct connection. Since the supply channel originates at the very point where the Chennur anicut is situated, the anicut serves the purpose of feeding the supply channel, establishing a direct and proximate link. Accordingly, the Court held that the measures proposed by the State fall within the ambit of section 3(1) of the Act and overruled the first contention raised by the appellants.

It was observed that the supply channel serving the Chennur tank originated at the exact location where the Chennur anicut had been constructed, and therefore the anicut was plainly intended to feed that supply channel. The relationship between the anicut and the tank was described as both direct and proximate. Consequently, the view adopted by the lower courts was affirmed as correct, and the measures proposed by the State Government to improve the Chennur anicut were held to fall within the scope of section 3(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants was overruled. The counsel for the appellants sought to read extracts from speeches made by members of the State legislature and from answers given by the Minister who introduced the Bill, alleging that section 3(1) was not meant to cover alterations to an “anicut”. It was reiterated, however, that legislative debates cannot be used to interpret the language of a statute, although such material may be relevant to understanding the circumstances that led to the enactment. The appellants’ counsel also referred to the Madras Irrigation Works (Repairs, Improvement and Construction) Act, 1943, asserting that its provisions authorised the Government to repair, improve or construct irrigation works. The learned Chief Justice clarified that the two statutes addressed different subjects: the 1943 Act dealt with private irrigation works, whereas the present Act concerned the improvement of irrigation tanks situated in ryotwari, zamindari, inamdari or other lands, and that the proposed alterations to the Chennur anicut did not constitute improvement of any work within the ambit of the 1943 legislation. The discussion then moved to the second point raised by the appellants. It was noted that, although the appellants did not expressly seek an injunction, they in effect requested a declaration compelling the State Government to refrain from exercising the powers conferred by section 3(1). The suit was therefore characterized as a proceeding intended to restrain the Government’s statutory powers, albeit framed as a declaratory action. Accepting such a suit would, in the view of the Court, circumvent the prohibition contained in section 4 of the Act. Under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, a person entitled to a right over property may sue the party denying that right and the court may, at its discretion, declare the entitlement, but it must not issue a declaration that would be futile. Since the appellants, by virtue of section 4, were legally barred from seeking an injunction, any declaration that effectively restrained the State Government would be futile and thus barred. The counsel for the respondents proposed an alternative interpretation of section 4 that would preclude even a declaratory suit against the State Government, but this construction introduced language not found in the provision itself.

The Court observed that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act permits a person who asserts a right over property to sue a party denying that right, and that the court, at its discretion, may issue a declaration affirming the plaintiff’s entitlement. However, the Court stressed that a court must not issue a declaration that would be futile, especially where Section 4 of the Act precludes the appellants from seeking an injunction. The Court explained that if the State Government were to be bound by the declaration sought by the appellants—should the Court grant it—such a declaration would effectively restrain the State Government from exercising the powers granted to it under Section 3(1) of the Act. Consequently, if the true relief pursued by the appellants is to restrain the Government’s exercise of those powers, Section 4 would unquestionably apply and the suit would be barred under that provision. Counsel for the respondents then advanced an alternative construction of Section 4, arguing that the provision should also bar a declaratory suit against the State Government. The Court found that this construction introduced language not found in the statute and parsed the section in a manner not warranted by its plain words. Accordingly, the Court declined to examine this novel reconstruction further and chose to rest its decision on the finding already arrived at by the lower courts concerning the second point. Turning to the third point, the Court agreed with the High Court’s observation that the order dated 15 February 1952 (Exhibit B‑1) was based on a communication from the Board of Revenue dated 8 April 1950 (Exhibit B‑10), which plainly advised that the Government could act under Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore it was incorrect to claim that the Government did not intend to exercise its powers under Section 3(1) merely because the order did not expressly mention that provision. Viewed in its entirety, the proceedings demonstrate that the Government was indeed purporting to act under the authority conferred by Section 3(1). The Court then cited Rule 5 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Rules, 1950, which requires that a notice specifying the nature of the improvement to be effected under Section 3 and its probable cost, according to the technical plan and estimate, be published by the Collector in a prescribed form. The notice must be published in the District Gazette, affixed at the site of the proposed work, affixed in the village Chavadi of the villages whose lands are under the ayacut of the tank and are to be benefited by the work, and announced by beating a tom‑tom in those villages. The argument based on this rule is

The appellant contended that, since the notice mandated by Rule 5 had not been published, the State Government could not be said to be exercising its powers under section 3, and that, because the rule was mandatory, the failure to publish the notice rendered the State Government’s order of 15 February 1952 (Ex. B‑1) invalid. The Court was unable to accept either of these contentions. It had already observed that the document on which Ex. B‑1 was based, namely Ex. B‑10, demonstrated that the State Government was indeed proposing to act under section 3(1) and had requested the Board of Revenue to frame suitable rules and regulations. Moreover, the High Court correctly noted that at the time the appellants filed their suit the proposed action had not yet been taken and that there remained sufficient time for the State Government to publish the required notice under Rule 5.

In this view, the Court found it unnecessary to decide at this stage whether Rule 5 was mandatory or merely directory, and held that the non‑publication of the notice in the present circumstances could not defeat the operation of section 4 of the Act. Regarding the final point, the Court observed that the validity of section 3(1) had not been challenged before any of the lower courts, and that, on appeal by special leave, counsel for the appellants could not be permitted to raise a new issue that had not been urged earlier. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Court further noted that Judge Narasimham, in his judgment, had made observations on the merits of the appellants’ claim that were not justified and might prejudice the appellants in future proceedings. The learned judge had stated that it was incorrect to say the appellants would suffer a reduction in water‑supply because of the proposed alterations in the Chennur anicut, and had added that the proposed measures would increase water‑supply to both Chennur and Gudur ryots. The Court observed that the judge seemed to have forgotten that the case before him was not a merits determination; the sole issue was whether section 4 barred the suit’s maintenance. Accordingly, the Court held that the judge’s remarks on the merits were premature and unnecessary for resolving the sole question before the court, and the appeal was dismissed.