Y LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am in entire agreement with the conclusions of my learned brother. However, I would like to say something about the scope and ambit of sections 3 and 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act (Act XIX of 1949) round the interpretation of which the controversy rages in this appeal. The facts material for this inquiry are narrated in the Judgment of my learned brother and it is needless to recapitulate them. I will only deal with the arguments based on the two sections.

(2.) The point presented by the advocate for the appellants is that section 4 would govern only actions which seek to impugn the validity of acts done under section 3 and not those falling outside the purview of the latter section. This proposition appears sound. Therefore, it is to be considered whether section 3 could be invoked in this case as otherwise resort cannot be had to section 4. It is now convenient to look at the relevant statutory provisions. Section 3, omitting the unnecessary portion, reads thus :

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that alterations to anicuts or interference with existing supply channels and sources so as to affect the customary supply of water are not within the contemplation of section 3. That section empowers Government only to effect improvements to the bund, weir and sluice or to deepen the bed of the tank. The point urged is that the expression 'efficiency of a tank' has a limited connotation and does not comprehend within Its compass increasing the supply of water to the tank.