Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41930
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA, J
STATE OF TAMILNADU – Appellant
Versus
M/S UNITED NILGIRIS TEA ESTATE – Respondent
S.A.No.1063 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
For Appellant :Mr.R.Ramanlal, AAG, assisted by Mr.V.Ramesh, GA For Respondents: Mr.C.A.Diwakar
The court ruled that exaggerated water usage assessments for diversion charges were arbitrary and violated natural justice principles, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 - Sections 58 and 59 - Water diversion charges - Plaintiff sought declaration against arbitrary enhancement of water charges by defendants - Trial Court decreed suit, First Appellate Court modified mandatory injunction - Court found demand based on exaggerated water usage without basis, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain suit regarding assessment fixed under Revenue Recovery Act - Court ruled that suit was maintainable despite defendants' claims of jurisdictional bar. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff Company owned a Tea Estate and challenged the defendants' enhanced water diversion charges as arbitrary and illegal, claiming long-standing rights to water usage without obstruction.
Findings of Court:
The Courts below found the defendants' demand for water charges arbitrary and illegal, confirming the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
Issues: The main issues included the sustainability of the suit without approaching appropriate authorities and the legality of the demand raised by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exaggerated assessment of water usage was unfounded and that the principles of natural justice were violated in the demand process.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the First Appellate Court's order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's findings on evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. assessment found arbitrary (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. second appeal dismissed (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2007 made in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Udhagamandalam which was reversed by the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.351 / 2004 dated 27.09.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.
2. Heard Mr.R.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The appellants are the defendants against whom the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the enhanced impugned demand of Rs.22,638/- made by the defendants being the water diversion charge per year in its proceedings dated 11.06.2004 is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and a consequential mandatory injunction. The Trial Court has decreed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff Company owned a Tea Estate in and around the Nilgiris District cultivating and dealing in tea. It has been holding the license for the diversion and use of water for domestic purpose from the Government sources from Survey Field No.334 and 336 of Balacola Village from the year 1931 onwards till date without any obstructions. The water is used purely for drinking and other domestic purposes and no water is used for any industrial or commercial for the Company. The second defendant has enhanced the charges without complying the principles of natural justice.
4.1. The plaintiff company has been paying the arbitrary enhanced water diversion charges under protest and without prejudice to his right to recover or adjust the excess amount towards the future water diversion charges. The plaintiff had given the required particulars to the second defendant on 07.02.2002 in compliance with the demand of the second defendant's letter in RC.A1/5722/02 dated 26.02.2002. The defendants had subsequently gave some more water connections to the nearby Kanneri lease and Kanneri Village from the same Government water source. The plaintiff had sent a letter to the second defendant on 16.03.2002 demanding to have personal inspection and fix the water diversion amount reasonably. The second defendant had threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, despite, the plaintiff had paid the water diversion charge for the fasli 1410 and 1411 in full under protest and for the fasli 1412 in part, by its letter of demand dated 25.06.2004 under RC-A2 3233/04 dated 11.06.2004 by invoking Revenue Recovery Act without disclosing any particulars on wrong calculation and wrong notion by demanding the balance sum of Rs.14637/- for the fasli 1412 and Rs.22,638/- for the fasli 1413.
4.2. The defendants have abruptly failed to either enquire into the matter in the issue or redress the grievance of the plaintiff till date. The plaintiff had caused a statutory notice dated 14.07.2004 to the defendants under Section 8 of CPC. The defendants having received the said statutory notice on 15.07.2004 without demur. They neither complied with the statutory notice nor replied thereto till date. But the second defendant has acknowledged the earlier payments of the water diversion charge by the plaintiff and issued an order under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration and for consequential reliefs.
5. The written statement filed by the defendants are as under:
The water diversion charges has been charged as per the procedure and condition accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also using the water for irrigation purpose. After inspection, a diversion permit was issued to the plaintiff vide the proceedings of the Collector of the Nilgiris in D.D.A1/5604/2000 dated 20.11.
