1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff seeking enhancement in the amount of damages awarded by the learned II Joint C.J.S.D. Beed. The appellant had filed the Special Civil Suit No.42 of 1994 seeking recovery of the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The suit was partly decreed and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to make payment of Rs.10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. 2. The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of damages, awarded by the trial court, has filed this appeal on the point of quantum only. The parties herein are referred to their status in the Special Civil Suit No. 42 of 1994.

3. The agricultural land Gat No.436, the subject matter of the suit, is situated at village Upli, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed admeasures about two hectares and 51 Are. The defendants have constructed the reservoir, for the purpose of irrigation, on Kundlika river flowing from the vicinity of village Upli. Initially, it was medium irrigation project. However, as of today, it is large minor irrigation project. The left bank canal has been constructed by the defendants, which is adjoining to the suit property owned by the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the canal is undisputedly chain Nos. 2260 to 2930, in the vicinity of the suit property. The plaintiff has alleged that excavation and construction of left bank canal was defective. The water accumulated, had been percolated into the suit property and thereby destructed the fertility and cultivability of the suit property with crops. The plaintiff had pointed out this fact by various written communications to the Officers of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3. The District Collector addressed one communication to Officer of Soil Conservation department of the State. Defendant No.3 ultimately was informed by defendant No.2 by communication dated 18.6.1992 for taking necessary steps for stopping the percolation of canal water to the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff, could not raise crop in the suit property for 5/6 years and thereby claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The defendants after entering appearance filed written statement Exh. 9/B. They have pleaded that drains were constructed by them for taking out percolated water to Nala in the vicinity. They denied the percolation of canal water to the suit property and destruction of suit property on account of such accumulation of water. They also pleaded that "Uncoarsal Rubble Lining" (UCR lining) was provided to the stretch of canal in question. Side drains to the canal were also provided and therefore, they denied the claim of the plaintiff for compensation. The side drains were provided to facilitate to drain water to Nala. It has also pleaded that the quality of the land/suit property was barren and therefore, there is no responsibility and liability of making any payment of damages for such land. They further pleaded that they were not at all fault for such alleged damages. The trial court framed about 12 issues, accepted the case of the plaintiff in relation to cause for damages, partly decreed the suit, and awarded the amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is no appeal filed on behalf of the State neither cross objection in this appeal is filed on behalf of respondents-defendants. The learned A.G.P. on instructions from the Officer of defendant No.1 State, concedes to this position. This appeal in this premise, is filed by the plaintiff for enhancement of quantum of damages only.

6. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined P.W.1 Shaikh Ayyuub Shaikh Gafoor at Exh.18. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.2 Govinda Ranba Soge is also examined. In support of the case pleaded by the defendants, on their behalf, D.W.1 Mr. Prakash Madhavrao Maslekar, Sectional Engineer was examined.

7. I have heard the learned counsel Mrs. An