1161 dated May 6, 1939, was issued modifying the earlier order in some respects.
2241/1 dated October 16 1935 and the matter was further investigated by Government.
The appellants alleged that the Chennur ryots did number stick to the arrangements made as a result of G. O No.
These attempts failed in 1929 1930.
At first, the State of Andhra Pradesh was the only defendant.
In addition, a separate channel from the Pumbaleru anicut directly irrigated about Ac.
In pursuance of that order, a masonry anicut known as the Chennur anicut was companystructed in 1944, the details whereof were stated in Ex.
APpeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1959, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad in Second Appeal No.
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.
600 00 of land.
But they renewed their attempts and in 1935, the Madras Government passed an order G. O. No.
428 of 1959.
It was stated that on the whole, about Ac.
A 6 and summarised in paragraph 11 of the plaint.
These ryots made several attempts to secure a portion of the water of Venkatagiri river by having an anicut companystructed 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.
Certain other defendants, presumably ryots of Chennur, were made parties defendants on a later date.
Finally, 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 numberice 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.,
The section is in these terms No Court shall entertain any suit or appli cation for the issue of an injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers companyferred on the Government by section 3.
The ryots of Chennur a village situate higher up the river, had also a tank for irrigating their lands.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2241/1 dated October 16, 1935 directing the companystruction 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 number 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.
XIX of 1949 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
They, therefore, prayed for a decree a declaring that the defendant has numberright 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 companyts of the suit and c and for such other and further reliefs as in the circumstances the companyrt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.
It passes by or near villages Chennur, Gudur, etc.
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.
They specifically said in the plaint that it was number 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 companyrt.
614 of 1961.
4000 00 of the land of the appellants were irrigated in the manner indicated above under the Gudur anicut system.
Ranganadham Chetty and P. D. Menon, for the respondent No.
The appellants were the plaintiffs in the first companyrt.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and T.V.R. Tatachari, for the appellants.
ii removal of the dam stones and planks altogether and the companystruction 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.
K. DAs.
September 26.
J. This is an 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 Mad.
With those details we are number at present companycerned, except merely to state that the anicut companysisted of two portions a free portion 61 feet long on the west and a fixed portion about 11.
4 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 number to be planked until the Gudur anicut was surplusing.
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 called Ananthamadugu.
