ORDER:- The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He has come up in revision against the order vacating interim injunction issued in the first instance restraining the defendant-State from obstructing or blocking the sluice which is the B Schedule item in the plaint. The suit itself is for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the free flow of water through the sluice. Against the order refusing tie injunction civil miscellaneous appeal was filed in the District Court, which was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner is stated to be the owner of over 17 acres of paddy land which is bounded on all sides by bunds. On the eastern side there is a river and the river water is let in through the sluice for the paddy cultivation and for prawn fishing. According to the plaintiff, the sluice is the only contrivance by which water could be let in, and let out Both for paddy cultivation and prawn fishing this process of letting in and letting out, of water is essential.

The bund has now been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the alleged purpose of facilitating paddy cultivation in the Vallarpadam area. The plaintiff's case is that now the sluice has been closed and thereby flow of water into the paddy land has been prevented and this has resulted in considerable damage to him. From the side of the Government, assurances were given to the plaintiff and other cultivators that by the acquisition, no difficulty at all would be caused to the cultivators in the matter of the use of the sluice for paddy

cultivation and prawn fishing. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that by closing the sluice his paddy land has been rendered useless.

2. The State in its counter-affidavit has stated that representations were received from institutions and the public of Vallarpadam who are engaged in paddy cultivation, and to protect their interests a scheme was formulated by the Government to put up a permanent bund on the eastern side of Vallarpadam with a view to prevent the flow of saline water into the paddy fields and damage to the crop. In implementation of the scheme, the bund was acquired by the Government. As a legal consequence of the acquisition, the bund along with the improvements thereon including the sluices, has passed on to the possession of the Government. An award was duly passed fixing the compensation due to the affected parties. The area acquired has already been handed over to the minor irrigation department for construction of the bund. The plaintiff's allegation that the acquisition was subject to his right of access to the river water, is denied.

The State would have it that under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the land has vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. The minor irrigation department has proposed to construct a permanent masonry sluice at the month of the poromboke thodu and there will be no difficulty in regulating the water in the plaintiffs nilam since the thodu is adjacent to the petitioner's nilam. The further allegation that the acquisition was made to propitiate certain political parties is also denied. The plaintiff is not entitled in law to question the acquisition proceedings.

3. The trial Court has considered the question from all relevant stand-points and come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out a case for an interim injunction. The argument advanced on the side of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has obtained an easement of necessity as a consequence of the acquisition did not find favour with the learned Munsiff. From the trend of the order of the learned Munsiff it would appear that all that the plaintiff is entitled to now, is to get compensation for the value of the land as also damage, if any, suffered by him on account of the acquisition, and this view has been upheld by the learned appellate Judge.

In dealing with the various questions mooted, the Court to some extent had to enter into the merits of the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document