Dispute
in sharing of water between riparian States is nothing new ! ~ yet this case
involving Maharaja of Pithapuram sounds pretty interesting ! As you travel in Vijayawada – Visakhapatnam
section, after Samarlakota [Samalkot] Jn – where line branches to Kakinada,
comes this small Railway station – Pithapuram, around 12 kms from Samalkot…. ..
and a web search links to a Maharani and her lavish ways of life and some
Chennai connection too !
Pithapuram
or Peetika Puram is a town and a municipality in East Godavari district of
Andhra Pradesh. The temple town is one of
fifty five Sakti Peetikas. Shripada Shri Vallabha, worshipped to be an
incarnation of Lord Dattatreya by his devotees, lived in Pithapuram.. . and in
Alwarpet, Chennai there are two streets bearing the names of Maharajah Surya Rao and Maharani Chinnamma
Roads, it was their daughter who made
ripples .. .. Maharani Sita Devi of Baroda ! who passed away in 1989 in France at the age
of 72. She was rumoured to travel with no less than a thousand sarees, coordinated with shoes and furs. She was a car enthusiast and was reportedly
very fond of her Mercedes W126 which was custom-made for her by Mercedes Benz.
At the 1969 Ascot Gold Cup, she invited guests to touch the 30-carat (6.0 g)
sapphire on her right hand for good luck.
Rao
Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Rau (1885–1964) was Maharajah of Pithapuram. He
was affectionately known as "Abhinava Krishnadevaraya". Maharani
Sita Devi of Baroda was his daughter. It is stated that Surya Rau was born to
Raja Gangadhara Rau and Maharani Mangamamba Devi in 1885 in the Pithapuram Fort
and was named 'Suryaraya'. Gangadhar Rau married seven wives, but did not bear
any children for sometime. Before his birth, Maharajah adopted a boy from the
Venkatagiri royal family. This late birth and adoption led to endless
litigation between 1891 and 1899. Finally the Privy Council decided in favour
of the new-born prince. He married
Chinnamamba Devi in 1905, the eldest
daughter of Rajah Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of
Kapileswarapuram (Nuzvid). The zamindar
of Pithapuram sponsored the monumental classical Telugu dictionary,
Suryarayandhranighantuvu, and even commissioned the first typewriter in Telugu.
His
daughter, Sita Devi first married
Apparao Bahadur, Zamindar of Vuyyuru. Years later, at Madras Horse races
in 1943, she was to meet her second
husband, Pratap Singh Gaekwar of Baroda.
The Gaekwad was, at that time, considered the eighth richest man in the
world and the second richest Indian prince. The marriage raised consternation with the British authorities, as
this violated the antibigamy laws of that time.
They were to sail out and settle
elsewhere in Monaco, living a lavish life.
In
1937 at Madras High Court this interesting case came up before Judge - Alfred
Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. it was an appeal
arising out of a suit filed before the
Deputy Collector, Cocanada, under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act,
1908, by the Maharajah of Pithapuram, to recover from the appellant and 5 other
tenants an aggregate sum of Rs. 11-1-4 for water taken by them without his
permission from his tank for the purpose of raising wet crops on dry lands.
It
was claimed that the defendants have no
right whatever to use the said water for the jirayati dry lands in the
aforesaid manner. As the defendants used the said water unjustly the amount of
Rs. 9-15-7 towards tirva and cesses thereon, with interest (was due) and in
spite of several demands by the plaintiff's officials, both oral and written,
the defendants did not pay as mentioned above.
The
difference between this sum of Rs. 9-15-7 and Rs. 11-1-4 represents the claim
for interest. The main lines of defence were: (1) the Revenue Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was a suit in tort; (2) even if it
could be treated as a suit for rent it could not be maintained as it amounted
to a claim for enhanced rent contrary to the provisions of the Act; and (3) the
terms of the patta precluded the plaintiff seeking extra rent. The appellant
denied that the water belonged to the plaintiff and alleged that he had used it
for only one Fasli (1338), and then not on drylands. The Deputy Collector
dismissed the suit holding that the water belonged to the defendants and that
the terms of the patta precluded the plaintiff from claiming any enhanced rent.
An
appeal followed to the District Judge of East Godavari, who held that the tank
did belong to the plaintiff and that water had been used for the three Faslis
mentioned in the plaint on dry lands belonging to the defendants. To the contention that the suit is in reality a suit
to recover damages for tort, it should be borne in mind that it was instituted
under the provisions of Section 77 of the Act which relates only to the
recovery of arrears of rent. Section 3(11) defines 'rent' as meaning whatever
is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both to a landholder by a ryot
for the use or occupation of land for the purpose of agriculture and includes
whatever is lawfully payable on account of water supplied by the landholder or
taken without his permission for cultivation of land where the charge for water
has not been consolidated with the charge for the use or occupation of the land
A
Full Bench of this Court consisting of Ramesam, Wallace and Jackson, JJ.,
considered the question in Doraiswami Gurukkal v. Subramania Gurukkal (1927) 54
M.L.J. 361 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 266 (F.B.). In this case a ryot had used for the
purpose of cultivating his land water from a tank belonging to Government, and
Government required the landlord to pay for the water taken by the ryot. The
landlord then sought to recover from the ryot what he had been compelled to pay
to Government, and the question was whether this was a claim for enhancement of
rent within the meaning of Section 24.
It
is settled that you should on no account demand a reduction or remission of
cist either on account of excess inam or want of rain or for any other reason
and that I should on no account enhance the cist at any time on the said
kamatham (holding), but when the patta was drawn up it was never contemplated
that the tenants would take water from the landlord's tank without his
permission. The fact that the parties did not contemplate an increase in rent
in the ordinary way does not preclude the landlord from requiring his tenants
to pay for something taken without his permission. The tenants took the water
behind the back of their landlord and must pay for it. The law says that it may
be recovered as rent and that is what the plaintiff sought to do in the suit
out of which this appeal arises.
It follows that we consider that the decision of the learned District Judge is
correct and that the plaintiff is entitled to hold the decree granted to him.
It has, however, been brought to our notice, that the appellant was in fact a
tenant for only one fasli (1338), and he will be only liable personally in
respect of that year. The rent for three years will of course be a charge on
the land. The decree will be modified to this extent. The appeal having failed
the respondent is entitled to his costs.
The
judgement inter-alia stated that the zamindar will be entitled, even under the
older decisions, to claim payment when water is taken from his tank only if
there is a contract express or implied between the parties providing for such
payment. It is no doubt true that in many cases there used to be a clause to
this effect in the pattas, providing for the contingency of the tenant taking
water from the landlord's tank for raising wet crop on dry land or a second
crop on a single crop wet land; but I cannot accede to the contention that the
zamindar's right is limited to such cases.
Interesting
!
With
regards – S. Sampathkumar
8th
Nov. 2o19
No comments:
Post a Comment