IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence of defendants in managing water pipeline resulted in damages to plaintiffs' agricultural land, warranting compensation of Rs.2,90,000 with interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Hardeep Mahida, learned advocate for the appellants- original defendants and Mr. P J Kanabar, learned advocate for the respondents- original plaintiffs.

2. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original defendants- Board being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.6.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2012, whereby, the learned Judge has partly decreed the suit in favour of the respondents – original plaintiffs directing to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- to be realized from the original defendants with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit fill its realization.

3. The facts as borne out from the record are briefly reproduced herein under:

3.1. The plaintiffs are the joint owners of an agricultural land bearing survey no.118/1 A paiki 25 total admeasuring 1-61-88 Hectare Are sq mtrs approximately 10 vighas of agricultural land of village Bambhaniya, Tal: Kunkavav, Dist. Amreli. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they used to take crops like groundnut, cotton, wheat, etc. throughout the years. The defendant no.2 board had laid down an underground pipeline to supply drinking water to the people of village Bambhaniya. This underground pipeline was 4 ft wide in diameter and it passes through the land of the plaintiffs, whereby an air valve was fixed for the purpose of distribution of the water to the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the month of July and August 2010 the leakage of water had started from the lower and upper part of the air valve which has resulted into spread of the water over the land of the plaintiffs causing extensive damages to the land of the plaintiffs as well as to the standing crop. The letter dated 26.10.2011 was addressed to the defendant no.3 Gujarat Water Infrastructure Company Limited who has been entrusted the work to manage and administer the water supply pipeline by the defendant no.2 Board. The defendant no.3 had not responded to such a complaint. On 30.3.2011, a heavy bulk of water was released from Narmada Canal through the main line and because of leakage of air valve, resulting in loss to the land as well as to the standing crop of wheat of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also, therefore, approached the concerned Gram Panchayat by lodging a complaint on 31.3.2011. The panchayat in presence of the plaintiffs and other witnesses had drawn panchnama in this regard and a map was also prepared in presence of Panchas, Sarpanch and Talai cum Mantri of Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs had thereafter on the same day made a representation to the Ministry of Agriculture, State of Gujarat and had also written a letter on 1.4.2011, recommending damage sustained. The concerned Minister vide letter dated 21.4.2011 had informed the defendant no.2 Board to take necessary action in this regard, however, no steps were taken. The plaintiffs once again wrote a letter to the defendant nos.2 and 3 on 5.7.2011 by registered Post AD thereby providing necessary details with regard to the damages sustained by the plaintiffs and seeking compensation for such damages. The request was also made to shift the air valve from the land of the plaintiffs. On the same day, a letter was also addressed to the Minister of Agriculture of State as well as to the Member of Parliament which was in the form of notice. In response to the aforesaid complaint, one Shri Utpal Saheb and Devsibhai associated with defendant no.3 had visited the suit land on 12.7.2011, who according to plaintiffs have verified the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had again written a letter to the defendant no.2 in this regard. The similar representations were followed to the Collector, Amreli also vide letters dated 7.4.2011 and 13.7.2011. In absence of any compensation derived from the defendant no.2, the plaintiffs were cons