Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.-These are nine connected Appeals, A.S.Nos. 93 and III of 1947 being appeals by the opposite parties to O.S.No. 61 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Amalapuram, and the other seven appeals having been originally filed in the District Court, East Godavari, and got transferred here as the points involved in those appeals were the same as those in the first two appeals. Of these eight suits, covered by the nine appeals, four were filed by the Maharajah of Pithapuram, his son the Kumararajah, in whose favour he had executed a settlement, and his daughter-in-law the Yuvarani, who was the lessee in respect of the suit lands. These four suits are O.S.Nos. 34 of 1941, 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 and 61 of 1944. In those suits the plaintiffs had alleged that the two blocks of land shown in the plaint schedule had been formerly ryoti lands of the Pittapuram Zamindari and part of Lanka Gannavaram village, adjoining the Vynatheyam branch of the river Godavari and that the lands had been cultivated till fasli 1325, that is, till about 1915, that the Godavari submerged those lands and cultivation therein had to be abandoned, that by about 1935 or so the lands began to be re-formed in situ owing to the river receding and so, the first two plaintiffs leased out the 17 acres 90 cents of the suit lands thus re-formed to the third plaintiff on a rental of Rs. 455-5-6 by an order, dated 29th September, 1940, and that the third plaintiff held an auction for the lease of the above lands publicly and got bids for Rs. 10,000 on 28th September, 1940, after she had applied to the Conservator of Rivers, East Godavari, who was the East Godavari Executive Engineer, Head Works Division, Dowleswaram, under the Government of Madras, for permission to clear the nanal and cultivate the lands, but the Conservator of Rivers refused such permission for this and the three succeeding years covered by the four suits, improperly and illegally, and that, in any event, the Government became liable to pay the “compensation” to the plaintiffs under section 16 of the Madras River Conservancy Act, VI of 1884, or, in the alternative, to pay “mesne profits” or “damages” for such deprivation of cultivation. In O.S.No. 34 of 1941 (covered by A.S.No. 256 of 1948) the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 3,760 as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884 or as damages and mesne profits, for 1940-41. In O.S.No. 29 of 1943 (covered by A.S.No. 255 of 1948) they claimed damages of Rs. 3,500, Rs. 455-5-6 for plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Rs. 3,044-10-6 for the third plaintiff for the year 1941-42, as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, or as damages and mesne profits. In O.S.No. 14 of 1944 (covered by A.S.No. 257 of 1948) they claimed the same amount of Rs. 3,500 as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, or as damages and mesne profits for the year 1942-43. In O.S.No. 161 of 1944 (covered by A.S.No. 93 of 1947) they claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, or as damages and mesne profits for the year 1943-44 claiming Rs. 455-5-6 for plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Rs. 9,635 for the third plaintiff and giving up Rs. 80-5-6. In O.S.Nos. 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 and 61 of 1944, only the Province of Madras, represented by the Collector of East Godavari had been made the defendant, and notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code alone was given. In O.S.No. 34 of 1941, though the Conservator of Rivers, East Godavari, namely, the Executive Engineer, Headworks Division, Dowleswaram, was made the second defendant, the Province of Madras being the first defendant, notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code alone was given to the Government and notice under section 25 of Act VI of 1884 was not given to the Conservator of Rivers. In O.S.No. 13 of 1944, Ravi Subbarayudu, the owner of Zamindari ryoti land in Lanka Gannavaram village, near the lands covered by the other four suits and said to have been submerged like them in 1915 or so and become

Click Here to Read the rest of this document