IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.110 of 2000 BETWEEN State Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector, Nellore and another. …APPELLANTS AND Poluboyina Ramanaiah. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P. SESHACHALAPATHI The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This second appeal is by the State against the concurrent judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and the trial Court decreeing the respondent’s suit O.S.No.745 of 1984 for recovery of damages. 2. The suit in question came to be filed in the following circumstances: The respondent/plaintiff and other ayucutdars were all complaining to the Government of the danger posed to their lands and crops therein on account of overflow of water from the canal of Nellore Tank passing through their lands. All of them represented to the Government to construct a six feet wall to prevent overflow from the said canal so as to save the lands and crops of the ayucutdars therein from being damaged. The pleadings further show that the Government acceded to their representation and constructed a wall. But, however, on technical advice the height of the wall was restricted to three feet. In 1983, heavy rains again caused the Nellore Tank to overflow and the water overflowed even above the three feet wall constructed by the State along the said canal and resulted in heavy damage to the crops of the respondent and other ayucutdars. All of them, therefore, filed separate suits claiming damages from the appellant/State quantified at Rs.18,000/- so far as this suit is concerned. 3. In the written statement filed by the appellant/State, the substantial facts, as above, were admitted including that the three feet wall was constructed as per technical advice and it was also claimed that the damage to the crops of the respondent/plaintiff is on account of heavy rains for which damages cannot be sought from the appellant. 4. Oral and documentary evidence was laid on behalf of the appellant as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 and B2 whereas Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and P.W.s1 to 3 were examined so far as the respondent/ayucutdars are concerned. The plaintiff in the present suit O.S.No.745 of 1984 was examined as P.W.1. 5. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 was clearly cogent, convincing and satisfactory and that overflowing of the canal water resulted in the loss, particularly, in the background of the fact that all the ayucutdars were representing to the Government from 1978 onwards to protect their fields by constructing a wall along the canal. So far as quantification of loss is concerned, the trial Court considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that in the normal circumstances the yield would be 2 ½ putties of paddy per acre, but considering all the circumstances allowed the quantified damage to the extent of 1 ½ putties per acre and awarded compensation of Rs.11,238.75 ps. for Ac.5.55 cents of land, which is subject matter of the respondent’s suit O.S.No.745 of 1984. The said decree, on appeal, has been confirmed by the lower appellate in A.S.No.52 of 1991 both on the question of compensation as well as quantum. 6. In this appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised in the grounds of appeal, which were also formulated at the time of admission of this appeal on 21.04.2000. a) Whether a stray incident of heavy rains that caused overflow of water into fields in 1983 causing damages to the crop can make the State liable for damages? b) Whether the State can be made liable for an act of God that caused heavy rains and consequent damages to the crop in 1983 which was beyond its control? c) When a wall with 3 feet height was constructed as per the technical advice which prevented overflow of water for all the years except in 1983, whether State can be made liable for a solitary incident of loss of crop in 1983 for not raising the wall with 6 feet height as represented by the ryots? 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, who has tried to demonstrate the material in support of his case and in particular, the written statement allegations by contending that there is no provision or responsibility on the officials of the irrigation department for protection of crops from submersion on such occasions. He also points out that on the representation of the plaintiff and other ayucutdars three feet wall was duly constructed as per technical advice and that the loss and liability for compensation, as claimed, was denied. He also contended that the alleged loss is imaginary and there is no material to support the same. 8. The findings of the trial Court, on issues framed by it, clearly establish that since 1978 all the plaintiffs were constantly urging the concerned officials to extend the wall by raising its height to six feet and make adequate arrangements to safeguard their crops from overflow of water into their lands. They, therefore, contended that in 1983 when the water overflowed from the canal the lands were inundated submerging the standing crops and as such, their claim for compensation was justified. The trial Court also found that there is no exaggeration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and even the Zamin Ryot Publication marked as Ex.A4 indicates the price of paddy and the loss caused to the plaintiffs. The trial Court, therefore, found that all the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation. To the extent of quantifying compensation also, the trial Court took into consideration the normal yield and has granted reasonable compensation by taking less than what the normal yield per acre would fetch. The lower appellate Court also has examined the matter in the light of the evidence on record and the findings of the trial Court and has concurred with the said findings. 9. So far as the question of liability of the State for damages sought to be raised is concerned, it is evident that the State itself was conscious of the possible overflow from the canal, which explains it raising the wall of three feet height. However, in 1983, the same was found insufficient resulting in the damage, which the State also wanted to protect. The facts and circumstances of the case, clearly establish that the State itself had taken steps but they were not adequate and as such, there is no gainsaying that the State cannot be said to be liable. The substantial question of law under (b) above is framed as if the damage is on account of act of God whereas, in fact, the damage is caused on account of insufficient height of the wall built by the State to avoid the damage to the respondent’s land. This, therefore, cannot be said to be an act of God and as such, the decree granted by both the Courts below needs no interference. The substantial questions of law, accordingly, deserve to be answered against the appellant. The second appeal, accordingly, is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 18, 2010 DSK