JUDGMENT
B. Prakash Rao, J.
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal filed against the orders in I.A. No. 588 of 2000 in O.S. No. 94 of 2000 dated 24-10-2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada dismissing an application filed by them purported to be under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the boundary bunds situate in the plaint schedule lands in Survey No. 146/1, 146/2, 146/6 and 146/8 of Pawara village of Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District pending disposal of the suit.
2. In the suit filed seeking permanent injunction on the self same lines, the case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that they have purchased the suit lands under Ex.A.1 dated 30-4-1998, A.4 dated 11-6-1998 and Exs.A.2, A.3 and A.5 to A.7 dated 28-4-2000 and Ex.A.8 dated 20-4-2000 and the suit lands are adjacent to the land in Survey No. 145 wherein there exists a Raju Tank on East-Northern side. However, with a view to stop the over-flowing of the tank water and for the purpose of carrying on cultivation, the plaintiffs have raised bunds along the boundaries on all the three sides on their own lands. However, the respondents 1 to 4, having cast an evil eye on the property purchased by the plaintiffs and who could not succeed in getting the said property, are trying to interfere and influencing the respondents 5 and 6, who are the authorities, and in collusion with them got issued a notice dated 3-6-2000. Hence the relief of permanent injunction and pending the suit, temporary injunction.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 claiming to be the ryots contested the application stating that the suit lands claimed by the plaintiffs are the fore-shore lands and there was never any bund in between the suit lands and the tank in Survey No. 145 and it is only on their recent purchase that the plaintiffs have been trying to construct the same which obstructs the customary outflow of the tank to the detriment of the ryots under the ayacut. Further, in view of the findings already given in the earlier proceedings in L.P.A. No. 105 of 1959 dated 4-11-1960 and Ex.B.1 the judgment in O.S. No. 271 of 1951 dated 28-1-1953 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Kakinada, the question of raising any bunds does not arise.
4. Respondents 5 and 6, the authorities, have also contested the claim of the plaintiffs denying the existence of any such bunds and the same being very recently sought to be raised and as the suit lands being foreshore lands, any obstruction would be detrimental to the conservancy of the tank and interest of the ayacutdars. It was also pointed out that on verification and inspection, the proceedings were issued on 3-6-2000 followed by a report on 7-6-2000 stating that the formation of bunds is in violation of the rights of the ryots and amounts to tampering with the existing irrigation under the tank.
5. On contest, the court below dismissed the application holding that in view of the findings already given in Ex.B.1, the plaintiffs cannot raise any such bunds and it would amount to obstruction of irrigation. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no prima facie right to claim such relief.
6. After hearing the counsel on either side and a perusal of the record, the point which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether an injunction as sought for by the appellants herein can be granted restraining the authorities or the other respondents from interfering with the bunds as claimed by the plaintiffs?
7. The suit is one for simpliciter injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with the existing bunds in respect of the suit lands claimed to have been purchased by the appellants in pursuance of Exs.A.1 to A.8. The claim of the appellants is that these bunds have been quite in existence and it is only with a view to protect the lands from the overflowing water from the tank and to save the crop, there is such necessity and any interference therewith needs protection from the court. However, it is seen that the appellants’ purchase is only a recent one. The authorities have already issued a notice dated 3-6-2000 to the appellants as against raising of such bunds and they have filed explanation on 5-6-2000. The report of the irrigation authority is dated 7-6-2000, which shows that the appellants are trying to raise the bunds. The suit is filed on 13-6-2000. The case of the respondents including the authorities is that there was never any such bund and in fact it would obstruct the outflow of the tank water and deny the supply of water to the ayacutdars. It would further amount to interfering with the irrigation work. In support of their case, reliance was placed on the judgment in Ex.B.1 in O.S. No. 271 of 1951 dated 28-1-1953 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, though the parties to the present proceedings are not parties therein. However, a reading of the said judgment reveals that virtually similar such relief was claimed in the suit for mandatory injunction directing the authorities to restore the bund in respect of the lands adjacent to the very same tank. After a regular trial, the suit was dismissed holding that no such bunds were in existence and the plaintiffs therein are not entitled to the relief as sought for.
8. On a comparative approach in regard to the survey numbers, the lower court has found that the survey numbers mentioned therein were the old numbers and the survey numbers as claimed by the plaintiffs herein do refer to the old survey No. i.e., 127/1 and other sub-survey numbers. It is also commented that no material is produced on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that the survey numbers in respect of the tank or even that of those as claimed by the appellants do not tally with those old survey numbers. Admittedly, the earlier suit pertained to the fore-shore lands as now sought to be claimed once again by the appellants herein, though there is a serious attempt on the part of the appellants as to the interpretation of foreshore lands and further claiming that the lands purchased by them are not in fact foreshore lands.
9. The ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘foreshore lands’ reads:
“the part of a shore between high and low water marks, or between the water and cultivated or developed land. (Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition).”
10. Further, as per the Black’s Law Dictionary, a foreshore land is that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternatively covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides.
11. In fact, the very allegation as contained in the plaint and as complained against, would amply show that the plaintiffs-appellants themselves are trying to protect their lands from the over-flow of the water from the tank and, therefore, there is necessity of a bund to protect their crop and cultivation. It is not their case that there exists any land in between the suit lands and the tank. Apparently, the suit lands are affected by the backwaters of the tank and whenever the tank is full, water over-flows into the lands of the plaintiffs-appellants. There is no dispute as to the title of the plaintiffs in regard to the suit lands and there cannot also be a dispute as to the existence of any such lands, which get affected by the over-flow of water from the tank. In fact, in respect of such irrigation works, many patta lands also exist right in the tank-bed whereby the pattedars will not be in a position to cultivate the lands due to either the existence of the water or over-flow of the water. However, in respect of such irrigation work like tank etc., any interference with the supply of water or conservancy thereof or in regard to any affect on the other ayacutdars under the said tank is not permissible and no such person who owns patta lands can have a right to meddle with the irrigation work or in regard to the supply or flow.
12. In SESHADRI vs NARASIMHACHARI [AIR 1932 Madras 532], considering the customary rights in respect of an irrigation work on the submersion of adjoining lands from far off times, it was held:
“The Government has a right to maintain the status quo, the long established customary method of storing water in its tanks. The whole system of tank irrigation and the right of wet raiyats to water for irrigation in India has no counterpart in England and in English Common law. The law on such matters here is determined by custom and customary right. Submersion of lands on the foreshore of a tank when it is at its full tank level is no uncommon occurrence and is a feature of the recognised irrigation system. Where such submergence is a matter of the customary conditions of the locality when a tank is at its full tank level and is not the result of a direct and proved interference with these customary conditions, no cause of action for any of the wet raiyats does arise and no suit can be brought to restrain Government and other wet raiyats for a declaration that they have no right to submerge the lands of the plaintiff on the foreshore of the tank and for an injunction to restrain them from doing so.”
13. In MAHABOOB KHAN vs GOVINDARAJULU [AIR 1936 Madras 142], it was laid down that the law does not know of any natural right apart from a right of easement with reference to a right of passage or right to light and air and no one can claim any natural right against another unless he establishes an easement to that effect. Even though the decisions reported in SECY. OF STATE vs NARAYANASWAMI PILLAI [AIR 1936 MADRAS 692] and SECY. OF STATE vs NAGESWARA IYER [AIR 1936 MADRAS 923] have been cited, however, they pertain to the question as to whether one has got any right to water from a Government source and thus the principles laid down therein have no application to the facts of this case. In LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY vs STATE OF A.P. [1960 ALT 449], a Division Bench of this court while considering the provisions of Section 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949 held that a suit for declaration by ryots questioning the right of a State to alter, extend or add to the anicut over a river in any manner is not maintainable. In M.KISHTIAH vs REV. DIVIL. OFFICER while considering the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation (Construction and Maintenance of Water Courses) Act, 1965, it was held that the expression construction includes improvement, alteration and extension of water courses and, therefore, whenever any such action is sought to be done, the procedure prescribed thereunder should be followed and every person affected by the construction should be required to state his objections. Even these two later decisions have no direct bearing on the question involved in this case.
14. On behalf of the appellants, strong reliance is placed on the decision in P.SEETHARAMAYYA vs G.MAHALAKSHMAMMA [AIR 1958 A.P. 103] wherein the main question was as to the flow of flood water and the rights of riparian owner to obstruct the flow of water. Considering the same, it was held that the right to protect the land from flood should be enjoyed reasonably. It was not a case of back waters or foreshore lands and the incidence to the irrigation works. Therefore, the said decision has no application to this case.
15. However, in view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions in SESHADRI (supra) and MAHABOOB KHAN (supra), the court cannot come to the assistance of a person having land adjacent to a tank be it foreshore or otherwise to give any relief which directly or indirectly has a bearing in regard to an irrigation work more so of a tank of this nature. Admittedly, as per the report dated 7-6-2000, it was found by the competent irrigation authority that the appellants are trying to raise the bunds for the first time and a notice was issued on 3-6-2000 to which the appellants have explained on 5-6-2000 and the suit was filed on 13-6-2000 seeking the relief of injunction. Even though the appellants herein are not parties to the judgment in Ex.B.1 and also the judgment referred to in the L.P.A. No. 105 of 1959, the issues involved are referable only to the very same tank and almost for similar such relief wherein it was held that no such relief can be granted and the pattedars of the foreshore lands are not entitled to raise bunds.
16. In view of the same, I do not find any prima facie case to grant any relief and the lower court has rightly, after considering the reasons and appreciation of the entire material placed before it, rejected the application. I do not find any merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that any findings given herein will not bind the court below while deciding the main suit and all the questions are left open subject to establishing the same by cogent evidence and other material. The court below shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.