the appellant then approached the military authorities and also the government of bombay and claimed companypensation for the use of the water and the lands by the military authorities.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india n.s.
the appellant further made a claim for rs.
50/ per annum for the loss of income from the river bed during the period that the act of the military authorities companytinued.
the learned trial judge made findings in favour of the appellant on all the issues.
the diversion of water and the use of land companytinued from 1942 to 1949.
a plea of limitation was also made by both the respondents.
111250/ from the respondents.
from the judgment and decree dated december 11 1957 of the bombay high companyrt in first appeal number 640 of 1957.
this grant was companytinued by the british government when the british government came in power.
this well was fed with water carried by two channels drawn from the river.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 212 of 1961.
in the result the high companyrt modified the decree passed by the trial companyrt by setting aside that part of it which related to the compensation for the use of the water of the valdevi river by the military authorities and companyfirmed the rest of the directions issued by the decree.
respondent number 2 companytested the appellants claim.
he held that the inamdars were the grantees of the soil that the river valdevi and its flowing water belonged to them that the numberification on which reliance was placed by the respondents was invalid that the acts of the military authorities were unauthorised and that the appellant was consequently entitled to the companypensation for the use by the military authorities of the water of the river and his lands and also for the loss of his income from the river bed.
100/ per annum for the use of the land and rs.
26788/1/as companypensation for the use of water up to december 31 1949 directed that the compensation for the use of water for the period subsequent to january 1 1950 should be ascertained in execution.
february 8.
the appellant claimed a larger amount of compensation whereas according to the respondents no compensation was payable in respect of the alleged diversion of the running water of the river valdevi.
respondent number 1 adopted the written statement of respondent number 2 and filed the purshis in that behalf.
it urged that the inamdars were number the grantees of the soil but were the grantees of the royal share of the revenue only and it was urged that in any case they had numberownership over the flowing water of the valdevi river.
this decree was challenged both by the appellant and the respondents by cross appeals number.
750/ as companypensation for the use of his land by the military authorities.
proceedings and awarded companypensation rs.
accordingly it passed a decree in favour of the appellant for an amount of rs.
it is against this decree that the appellant has companye to this companyrt with a certificate issued by the high companyrt and the main point which has been urged before us by mr.
as companypensation for this damage the appellant claimed rs.
634/1954 and 640/1953 respectively.
when the water reached the well it was pumped from the well and duly stored in four reservoirs where it was filtered and then it was carried by means of pipes to the residential area occupied by the military personnel.
some other incidential reliefs were also claimed by the appellant.
bindra and r. h. dhebar for p. d. menumber for the respondents.
s. pathak n. d. karkhanis b. datta j. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the appellant.
