* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO % 17—09—2025 # Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy … Appellant vs.

$ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I&CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.

… Respondents !Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ponnamm Mallaiah Goud ^ Counsel for Respondents : Government Pleader

? Case referred:

1. (2020) 11 SCC 629 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

A.S.No.346 OF 2020 Between:

Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy … Appellant And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I&CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.

… Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 17.09.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

1. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No _____________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.153 of 2016, dated 09.07.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff, respondents are the defendants in the suit (OS.No.153 of 2016).

3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,24,549/- against the respondents-defendants with interest @ 18% per annum.

4.1. The appellant-plaintiff is the Ex-Chairman of Water Users Association (herein after called as WUA), Veldi and executed works under Veldi Ayacut in Sri Ram Sagar Project (herein after called as SRSP), entered into contract with respondent No.4-defendant No.4 for the execution of 10 civil works.

4.2. The works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff through the agreements vide Col.No.4 of the Annexure in the plaint. The said agreements were concluded by and between the appellant-plaintiff and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 on behalf of the Government to execute the works. The appellant-plaintiff has commenced the work with an intention to complete the same within the agreements period and has done the same without compromising in the quality and quantity. The in-charge Field Engineer was satisfied and recorded the measurements as per actuals, all the material supplied and works executed have been checked and measured by the competent Engineers. The Government in their Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/A1/2010-22, dated 28.04.2011 and 3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011, after the lapse of about 3 years from the date of execution, instructions have been imparted to inspect the works. The fact of the matter is that the works have been executed and recorded in different Measurement Books (herein after called as MBs) during 2008-09 itself. The in-charge Field Officers concerned have recorded the measurements.

4.3. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I, Hyderabad has formulated inspection teams for Civil and Mechanical works involving the team of Engineers working under other than the Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, Stage-I, Hyderabad. The civil works are 12 in number, they have been executed to the best satisfaction of the departmental authorities. Works were measured and checked by the competent authority and also by Superintending Engineers of other circle. The quality control authorities have also inspected the works and no remarks were raised, they were satisfied with the execution of works. The Government in their Memo No.

3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011 issued guidelines regarding making payment to WUAs. As per Para No.2 of the said Government Memo, two foremost conditions have to be satisfied for making payments i.e., a) Existence of a bonafide agreement (b) work executed as per the agreement conditions. 100% verification has been done by the Team of Engineers and the conditions were satisfied in respect of all the civil works executed by the appellant-plaintiff. The conditions stipulated at Para Nos