This Court on 19.9.1997 made the following order in the second appeal.

"In view of the substantial questions of law raised under Nos.(a) to (f) of Memorandum of grounds of second appeal, the second appeal is admitted."

On the said date this Court also made the order in C.M.P.No.14101 of 1997 as hereunder. "Respondents shall not interfere with supply of water to the villagers from Ganganamma Cheruvu through overhead tank and pipelines. Both parties are restrained from catching or disposing the fish."

2. However, learned counsel representing appellants-Gram Panchayat, represented by its Executive Officer and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kanagala, would maintain that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in this second appeal is as hereunder.

"Whether the findings recorded by the appellate court be sustained in the light of different provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) Sections 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86 of the Act in general and Section 86 in particular and also in the light of G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 10.4.1978?

The learned counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate court and would maintain that even if Exs.A-2 and A-4 are to be taken into consideration, there is ample evidence to show that these proceedings were not acted upon and there was no follow up action and the Gram Panchayat continuously has been exercising the rights as well reflected by Exs.B-2 to B-19 in particular. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Gram Panchayat in question had never taken a decision or never passed a resolution setting apart this land in the light of Section 86 of the Act. The counsel also in all fairness would submit that it is no doubt true that the washermen also may have to be provided with a tank for washing purposes and in fact the same had been done by the Gram Panchayat, but for the reasons best known to them they are not inclined to accept the same and without any just cause, whatsoever, instituted the present suit praying for a relief of perpetual injunction which cannot be granted, since granting of such perpetual injunction would amount to defeating the statutory provisions under the Act aforesaid. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that even in the light of the findings recorded by the appellate court, such findings cannot be sustained and the second appeal to be allowed. The learned counsel placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.

3. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee , learned counsel representing the first respondent would maintain that the stand taken by the Gram Panchayat that the tank is being set apart for drinking purpose is not a sustainable stand for the reason that the said water is not useful for drinking purposes at all. The counsel also would submit that in the light of Exs.A-2 and A-4 the burden is on the Gram Panchayat concerned to establish that the said proceedings were not acted upon. Further, the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of G.O.M.S.No.343, dated 10th April 1978 in general and Rule 3 specified thereunder in particular, inasmuch as first respondent-plaintiff is having enforceable legal right, the appellate court arrived at the correct conclusion and even otherwise whether the proceedings Exs.A-2 and A-4 in fact had been acted upon or not being predominantly a question of fact, the findings recorded by the appellate court in this regard normally not to be disturbed and even otherwise inasmuch as the question of law pointed out by the learned counsel representing the appellants being not a substantial question of law, the second appeal to be dismissed. Ultimately, the learned counsel would conclude that even otherwise, especially, in the light of the order made in C.M.P.No.19093 of 1997 in C.M.P.No.14101 of 1997 in S.A.No.718 of