S. K. Das, J. - (1.) This is 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 (XIX 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Section is in these terms:- "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."
(2.) 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 entertained. The question before us is, whether this finding is correct.
(3.) 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 several villages whose lands are irrigated by what is locally known as the "Gudur anicut system". There is a stream or small river known as Venkatagiri river which flows west to east and then takes a turn to the south. It passes by or near villages Chennur, Gudur, etc. The case of the appellants was that from time immemorial their lands were irrigated from four tanks; three of the tanks received their supply of water from the Venkatagiri river through a channel emanating from the Gudur anicut at a place culled Ananthamadugu. The fourth tank also received its supply of water from the same river through a channel emanating from near the "Pumbaleru anicut" further down the river. In addition, a separate channel from the "Pumbaleru anicut" directly irrigated about Ac. 600-00 of land. It was stated that on the whole, about Ac. 4000-00 of the land of the appellants were irrigated in the manner indicated above under the "Gudur anicut system". The ryots of Chennur, a village situated higher up the river, had also a tank for irrigating their lands. These ryots made several attempts to secure a portion of the water of Venkatagiri river by having an anicut constructed over the river at a place called Gollapalli, about one mile up the river, in order to get supply of water to Chennur tank by means of a supply channel emanating from near the place of the proposed Gollapalli anicut. These attempts failed in 1929-1930. But they renewed their attempts and in 1935, the Madras Government passed an order (G. O. No. 224 1/1 dated October 16, 1935) directing the construction of an anicut at Gollapalli for supply of water to the Chennur tank with certain safeguards to ensure that the supply to the "Gudur anicut system" was not adversely affected and to utilise only the excess water going to waste during the flood season for the Chennur tank. The appellants objected to the scheme of G. O. No. 2241/1 dated October 16, 1935 and the matter was further investigated by Government. Finally, G. O. No. l161 dated May 6, 1939 was issued modifying the earlier order in some respects. In pursuance of that order, a masonry anicut known as the Chennur anicut was constructed in 1944, the details whereof were stated in Ex. A-6 and summarised in paragraph it of the plaint. With those details we are not at present concerned, except merely to state that the anicut consisted of two portions:a 'free' portion 61 feet long on the west and a 'fixed' portion about l14 feet long, the free portion to be kept fully planked only when the river was in flood with a view to divert surplus water to Chennur tank and was not to be planked until the Gudur anicut was "surplusing". The appellants alleged that the Chennur ryots did not stick to the arrangements made as a result of G. O. No. 1161 dated May 6, 1939 but renewed their attempts for getting a larger supply of water from Venkatagiri river and the appellants came to know that behind their back and without notice to them, the State Government passed another order in 1952 in which they directed (i) the extension of the Chennur anicut by another 46 feet, (ii) removal of the dam stones and planks altogether and the construction of a permanent masonry wall over the crest of the anicut to the entire length of 175 feet, (iii) raising the height of the wall by 3 feet more, and (iv) installation of three vents with screw-gearing-shutters for the flow of water down the Chennur anicut. The appellants alleged that this would seriously affect their accustomed right to the supply of water from Venkatagiri river under the "Gudur anicut system" and practically deprive them of water during the low supply and spring periods. They, therefore, prayed for a decree- (a) declaring that the defendant has no right in the circumstances stated above to alter or extend or add to the Chennur anicut over Venkatagiri river at Gollapalli in any manner whatsoever; (b) for costs of the suit; and (c) and for such other and further reliefs as in the circumstances the court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances. They specifically said in the plaint that it was not necessary to ask for a permanent injunction "as the defendant (meaning the State of Andhra Pradesh) was bound and certain to give effect to the declaration granted by the court." At first, the State of Andhra Pradesh was the only defendant. Certain other defendants, presumably ryots of Chennur, were made parties-defendants on a later date.;