RAMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A stream originating from the hills located near Hadichira in the district of Ganjam and winding its way by village Khamar and other villages merges in Chancharabandh located in Madhupadar village. In the beginning, the stream is known as 'Nikitinala' and later as 'Jamanala'. The plaintiff-petitioners who are the residents of village Khamar have alleged that Jamanala since time immemorial has been the irrigation source of lands in several villages including the lands located in village Khamar. Thirty years back when the Rusikulya project was implemented, a pipe was fixed for flow of water from the canal to Jamanala to irrigate the land of the petitioners. It is averred that defendants 1, 2 and 3 opposite parties intended to divert the water by erecting a small embankment and digging separate channel. If the defendants succeeded, the petitioners would lose the irrigation benefits and would be prejudicially affected. On the aforesaid averments, they instituted a suit in the court of the Munsif for injunction restraining the defendants from going upon the land for the purpose of diverting the water by construction of any obstruction and for a direction to the opposite parties to remove any construction that might have been made. The defendants controverted the allegations and pleaded lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

(2.) Trial was taken up. In the midst of the trial, an application was filed by the defendants under O.14, R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for hearing of the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and the court having granted the prayer, hearing of the suit was taken on the preliminary issue.

(3.) It was contended that having regard to the allegations of the plaintiffs that their lands given in the schedule was being irrigated by the waters which flowed through pipe No. 6, obstruction to which flow was alleged, the suit in substance was one of declaration of title and consequential relief. It was essentially a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of irrigation and for injunction restraining the defendants from diverting or obstructing the flow.