Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.-These are nine connected Appeals, A.S.Nos. 93 and III of 1947 being appeals by the opposite parties to O.S.No. 61 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Amalapuram, and the other seven appeals having been originally filed in the District Court, East Godavari, and got transferred here as the points involved in those appeals were the same as those in the first two appeals. Of these eight suits, covered by the nine appeals, four were filed by the Maharajah of Pithapuram, his son the Kumararajah, in whose favour he had executed a settlement, and his daughter-in-law the Yuvarani, who was the lessee in respect of the suit lands. These four suits are O.S.Nos. 34 of 1941, 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 and 61 of 1944. In those suits the plaintiffs had alleged that the two blocks of land shown in the plaint schedule had been formerly ryoti lands of the Pittapuram Zamindari and part of Lanka Gannavaram village, adjoining the Vynatheyam branch of the river Godavari and that the lands had been cultivated till fasli 1325, that is, till about 1915, that the Godavari submerged those lands and cultivation therein had to be abandoned, that by about 1935 or so the lands began to be re-formed in situ owing to the river receding and so, the first two plaintiffs leased out the 17 acres 90 cents of the suit lands thus re-formed to the third plaintiff on a rental of Rs. 455-5-6 by an order, dated 29th September, 1940, and that the third plaintiff held an auction for the lease of the above lands publicly and got bids for Rs. 10,000 on 28th September, 1940, after she had applied to the Conservator of Rivers, East Godavari, who was the East Godavari Executive Engineer, Head Works Division, Dowleswaram, under the Government of Madras, for permission to clear the nanal and cultivate the lands, but the Conservator of Rivers refused such permission for this and the three succeeding years covered by the four suits, improperly and illegally, and that, in any event, the Government became liable to pay the “compensation” to the plaintiffs under section 16 of the Madras River Conservancy Act, VI of 1884, or, in the alternative, to pay “mesne profits” or “damages” for such deprivation of cultivation. In O.S.No. 34 of 1941 (covered by A.S.No. 256 of 1948) the plaintiffs claimed Rs. In O.S.No. 34 of 1941 (covered by A.S.No. 256 of 1948) the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 3,760 as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884 or as damages and mesne profits, for 1940-41. In O.S.No. 29 of 1943 (covered by A.S.No. 255 of 1948) they claimed damages of Rs. 3,500, Rs. 455-5-6 for plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Rs. 3,044-10-6 for the third plaintiff for the year 1941-42, as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, or as damages and mesne profits. In O.S.No. 14 of 1944 (covered by A.S.No. 257 of 1948) they claimed the same amount of Rs. 3,500 as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, or as damages and mesne profits for the year 1942-43. In O.S.No. 161 of 1944 (covered by A.S.No. 93 of 1947) they claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, or as damages and mesne profits for the year 1943-44 claiming Rs. 455-5-6 for plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Rs. 9,635 for the third plaintiff and giving up Rs. 80-5-6. In O.S.Nos. 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 and 61 of 1944, only the Province of Madras, represented by the Collector of East Godavari had been made the defendant, and notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code alone was given. In O.S.No. 34 of 1941, though the Conservator of Rivers, East Godavari, namely, the Executive Engineer, Headworks Division, Dowleswaram, was made the second defendant, the Province of Madras being the first defendant, notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code alone was given to the Government and notice under section 25 of Act VI of 1884 was not given to the Conservator of Rivers. In O.S.No. 13 of 1944, Ravi Subbarayudu, the owner of Zamindari ryoti land in Lanka Gannavaram village, near the lands covered by the other four suits and said to have been submerged like them in 1915 or so and become fit for cultivation in 1940 claimed a compensation of Rs. 350 under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, for the year 1941-42, owing to refusal of permission to cultivate and made only the Conservator of Rivers, East Godavari, the sole defendant. He gave notice to the conservator, under section 25 of Act VI of 1884. In O.S.No. 11 of 1945, covered by A.S.No. 252 of 1948, the same Ravi Subbarayudu claimed a compensation of Rs. He gave notice to the conservator, under section 25 of Act VI of 1884. In O.S.No. 11 of 1945, covered by A.S.No. 252 of 1948, the same Ravi Subbarayudu claimed a compensation of Rs. 500 for the same land for the year 1943-44 owing to refusal of permission to cultivate. In O.S.No. 41 of 1943, covered by A.S.No. 253 of 1948, one Dokka Jagganna, the owner of a Zamindari ryoti land of Lanka Gannavaram village, adjoining the lands in the other suits, said to have been submerged in 1915 or so and become fit for cultivation in 1940, claimed damages of Rs. 1,100 under section 16 of Act VI of 1884 for the year 1941-42 for refusal of permission for cultivation, the sole defendant was the Conservator of Rivers, and he was given notice under section 25 of Act VI of 1884. In O.S.No. 42 of 1943, one Joganna claimed compensation of Rs. 1,850 under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, against the Conservator of Rivers in respect of another land submerged by the Godavari in 1915 or so and re-formed in 1939 or so, owing to refusal of permission to cultivate in 1941-42. Subbarayudu and Joganna had filed their suits originally in the District Munsif’s Court, Razole, and they had been transferred to the Sub-Court, Amalapuram, for trial along with the other four suits filed there covering the same question. All these suits were vigorously contested. The main points of the contention by the Government in all the suits were (1) that the plots were not proved to be re-formations in situ and that, at any rate, the plot E.F.G.H.I. concerned in the four suits, O.S.Nos. All these suits were vigorously contested. The main points of the contention by the Government in all the suits were (1) that the plots were not proved to be re-formations in situ and that, at any rate, the plot E.F.G.H.I. concerned in the four suits, O.S.Nos. 34 of 1941, 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 and 61 of 1944, was an independent formation in the bed of the Godavari, a navigable and tidal river, and that the title to this plot, at any rate, belonged only to the Government; (2) that the re-formations in the other cases, even if true, were not spontaneous re-formations in situ, but a direct result of protective and conservancy works undertaken by the Government through the Conservator of Rivers, and, so, the title to such re-formed lands would vest only in the Government; (3) that the orders of the Conservator of Rivers refusing permission to cultivate were bona fide and proper and in the interests of the Rivers and the public, and so, no compensation or damages could be claimed; (4) that, even otherwise, no damages could be claimed by the plaintiffs as the lands covered by the suits were overgrown with nanal and unfit for tobacco or other cultivation (contrary to the allegations in the plaints) and would have fetched very little, if at all anything, if the nanal were cleared and the lands were cultivated with tobacco, and that they would not have fetched even the cost of clearing the nanal, and that the damages claimed were, in any event, exorbitant and fanciful, not even Rs. 10 to 15 per acre being got on similar adjoining lanka lands free from nanal in auctions held by Government in these very years. 10 to 15 per acre being got on similar adjoining lanka lands free from nanal in auctions held by Government in these very years. Regarding the four suits filed by the Maharajah of Pithapuram and two others, the Government raised two more contentions, namely, that the suits were not maintainable as no notice had been given to the Conservator of Rivers under section 25 of Act VI of 1884, and as the Government would not be liable for compensation except through the Conservator of Rivers under section 25 of the Act, and that the alleged lease to the third plaintiff, the Yuvarani of Pithapuram, was a fraud on the public in order to prevent the actual cultivating tenants from getting ryoti rights in the lands by giving them fictitiously to this lady of the zamindar’s own family and that the alleged bids for Rs. 10,000 for these lands were bogus and nominal and would not afford any standard for assessing the compensation or damages, if any, caused by the refusal of permission to cultivate. The learned Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, in an exhaustive judgment, considered all the contentions of all the parties in all the suits. He held that the orders of the Conservator of Rivers refusing permission to cultivate were bona fide and in the interest of the conservancy of the rivers, and the public, as such cultivation would have been prejudicial from the conservancy point of view, and that, therefore, the orders were neither unauthorised nor ultra vires nor mala fide, but that reasonable compensation could be claimed by the plaintiffs for the inability to cultivate the lands, consequent on such refusal of permission, under section 16 of Act VI of 1884 itself. He found, after a local inspection and after a thorough discussion of the evidence, including the survey plans and sketches and their comparison, that all the suit lands were re-formations in situ of old zamindari ryoti lands in existence for more than sixty years before they were submerged by the Godavari in 1915 or so, they having completely re-emerged in 1939 or 1940. He held that the plot E.F.G.H.I. was also such a re-formation in situ of old zamindari ryoti lands belonging to the plaintiffs, either by grant or at least by adverse possession uninterruptedly for more than sixty years, and that plot E.F.G.H.I. was not part of the bed of a tidal and navigable river, and so, even if it was not a re-formation in situ it would only belong to the plaintiffs (the riparian owners) and not to the Government. He found further that even if the plot E.F.G.H.I. was not a re-formation in situ and was an independent formation in a tidal and navigable liver, as urged by the Government, it would still belong to the plaintiffs, being a lateral accretion and not a vertical accretion. He held after a careful discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence regarding the income from tobacco cultivation in similar lanka lands and from his local inspection of the suit lands, that if permission had been given to cultivate them the net annual income per acre would be one putti of tobacco, for the majority of the lands, and he fixed the value of that one putti at Rs. 100 in 1940, Rs. 125 in 1941, Rs. 150 in 1942, Rs. 175 in 1943 and Rs. 200 in 1944. He gave slightly higher rates of income for Oorapaya lands and the plot E.F.G.H.I. He was of opinion that in O.S.No. 34 of 1941, the 2nd defendant, the Conservator of Rivers, was an unnecessary party, as the 1st defendant, the Government, which was liable to pay compensation, had been made a party and no independent tort had been proved against the 2nd defendant, and so dismissed the suit as against the 2nd defendant, and granted a decree only against the 1st defendant. He held in O.S.Nos. 34 of 1941, 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944, and 61 of 1944, that the suits were all maintainable even though a notice under section 25 of Act VI of 1884, had not been given to the Conservator of Rivers, and that officer had not been made even a party in three of the suits. He held in O.S.Nos. 34 of 1941, 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944, and 61 of 1944, that the suits were all maintainable even though a notice under section 25 of Act VI of 1884, had not been given to the Conservator of Rivers, and that officer had not been made even a party in three of the suits. According to him, a suit under the general law against the Government for damages and mesne profits, and even for compensation under section 16 of Act VI of 1884, was not precluded by section 25 of the Act which was only an enabling and not an exhaustive section. In the end, he gave the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 34 of 1941 a decree for Rs. 2,385-8-0 as damages and Rs. 374-13-0 as proportionate costs, and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 151-6-9. A.S.No. 256 of 1948 is the appeal by the Government against that decree. The plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of cross-objections for Rs. 2,614-3-9 the disallowed amount and costs and subsequent interest. In O.S.No. 29 of 1943 he gave a decree to the plaintiffs for Rs. 2,833-4-0 as damages and Rs. 388-5-2 as proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 44-9-9. The Government have filed appeal No. 255 of 1948 against the decree, and the plaintiff have filed a memorandum of cross-objections for Rs. 1,427-0-11, the disallowed amount, costs and subsequent interest. In O.S.No. 14 of 1944 he gave the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 3,134-4-0 as damages and Rs. 428-10-1 for proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 24-8-1. The Government have filed A.S.No. 257 of 1948 against the decree and the plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of cross-objections for Rs. 968-7-11 being the disallowed amount, costs and interest. In O.S.No. 61 of 1944 he granted a decree to the plaintiffs for Rs. 3,580 as damages and Rs. 399-0-11 as proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 349-6-5. The Government have filed A.S.No. 93 of 1947 against the decree, and the plaintiffs have filed A.S. No. III of 1947 for Rs. 677-5-8,, for the disallowed amount, costs and interest. In O.S.No. 13 of 1944, he granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 300 as damages with Rs. 349-6-5. The Government have filed A.S.No. 93 of 1947 against the decree, and the plaintiffs have filed A.S. No. III of 1947 for Rs. 677-5-8,, for the disallowed amount, costs and interest. In O.S.No. 13 of 1944, he granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 300 as damages with Rs. 53-10-0 as proportionate costs and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 3-9-2. The Government have filed an appeal, A. S. No. 251 of 1948 against the decree. There is no memorandum of cross-objections. In O.S.No. 11 of 1945, he granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 400 as damages with proportionate costs of Rs. 67-0-10, and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 5. The Government have filed A.S.No. 252 of 1948 against the decree. There is no memorandum of cross-objections. In O.S.No. 41 of 1943, he gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 750 as damages and proportionate costs of Rs. 120-9-0 and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 23-9-2. The Government have filed A.S.No. 253 of 1948. There is no memorandum of cross-objections. In O.S.No. 42 of 1943 he gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 1,200 as damages and Rs. 177-13-7 as proportionate costs, and dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs of Rs. 43-9-6. The Government have filed A.S. No. 254 of 1948 against the decree. There is no memorandum of cross-objections. We have perused the entire records, and heard the learned Government Pleader for the Government and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The learned Government Pleader raised several contentions. His first contention was that O.S. Nos. 34 of 1941 and 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 and 61 of 1944, were not maintainable and should have been dismissed as the requisite notice under section 25 of Act VI of 1884 had not been given to the Conservator of Rivers, and that no compensation under section 16 for refusal of permission to cultivate the lands could be claimed except as provided for under section 25 of Act, and that the suits had become barred by limitation under section 25. We cannot agree. It is no doubt, true that if in a particular Act a particular mode is exclusively prescribed for claiming the compensation claimable under the Act, that mode, and no other should be resorted to. We cannot agree. It is no doubt, true that if in a particular Act a particular mode is exclusively prescribed for claiming the compensation claimable under the Act, that mode, and no other should be resorted to. But where, as in section 25, there is no reference to the compensation claimable under section 16, and section 16 and other sections of Act VI of 1884 nowhere say that the compensation claimable under section 16 shall only be claimable by a suit brought against the Conservator of Rivers, the right of the plaintiffs under the general law to sue the Government for such compensation, or for damages or mesne profits, cannot be taken away, and will remain as supplementing the right under section 25 of the Act. So no question of non-maintainability or limitation arises. As this point has not been apparently covered by any decision of this Court, it is better to discuss the point a little in detail. Section 16 runs as follows: "Whenever under section 11, 12, 13 or 14 the Conservator of Rivers refuses the owner or occupier of any land permission to plant, cultivate or build on any land, or requires him to remove any groynes, buildings, constructions, plantations, grasses, trees or other obstructions or works existing at the time of the survey or subsequently authorised by the Conservator of Rivers, such owner or occupier shall be entitled to compensation for any damages sustained by him by reason of such requirement or refusal of permission. Section 25 runs as follows: “No suit shall be brought against any conservator, surveyor or subordinate, or any person acting under his direction, for anything done or intended to be done under this Act until after the expiration of three months next after notice in writing shall have been delivered or left at the office of such conservator, surveyor, subordinate or person or at his place of abode, explicitly stating the cause of action and the name and place of abode of the intended plaintiff and of his agent in the cause, if any, and upon the trial of such suit the plaintiff shall not be permitted to go into evidence of any cause of action except such as is stated in the notice so delivered and unless such notice be proved the Court shall find for the defendant; and every such suit shall be commenced, within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action.” It will be obvious, even at the cursory glance, that section 25 does not say that the compensation claimable under section 16 can only be claimed by a suit brought under that section against the conservator, surveyor or subordinate or any person acting under his direction. It is also not reasonable to hold so, as the section does not refer to the word “compensation” at all or say that that shall be the only mode of claiming the compensation claimable under section 16. As the lower Court has remarked, it is immaterial from the point of view of the plaintiffs whether a decree is passed against the Government or the Conservator of Rivers, or against both, and that, while it is open to the plaintiffs to make both parties or one of them a party to a suit for compensation, the sum awarded as compensation has to be recovered only from the Government as this represents only compensation under section 16 of the Act for an act lawfully done by the Conservator of Rivers under powers vested in him under Act VI of 1884, and not any compensation for independent torts committed by the Conservator of Rivers, for which the Government is not liable. It is clear that section 25, while undoubtedly covering a claim for compensation under section 16, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, may also conceivably cover other claims against the conservator, surveyor or subordinate or person acting under his direction, besides the compensation contemplated in section 16. So, two conclusions follow. The first is that the compensation claimable under section 16 can be claimed by a suit under section 25 after a notice under section 25, against the Government and the Conservator of Rivers though if the conservator is added the conditions prescribed in section 24 for the period of notice and for limitation will operates. The very clause: “No suit shall be brought against any conservator, surveyor or subordinate or any person acting under his direction.” in section 25 shows that it is a section intended to protect the conservator, surveyor, or subordinate or person acting under this direction, and not one intended to exclude the liability of the Government for compensation under section 16, except by a suit under section 25. Under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity except under the terms regarding notice, etc., prescribed by that section. It is clear to us that the Conservator of Rivers, East Godavari, who is no other than the Executive Engineer, Headworks, Dowleswaram Division, is a public officer, and that his act in these suits were undoubtedly purported to be done by him as such public officer in his official capacity. So a suit for compensation under section 16 of the Act VI of 1884, can, in our opinion be brought against Government alone under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, without adding the Conservator. If the conservator is added, the notice under section 25 will become necessary. Of these four suits, the conservator was added only in O.S.No. 34 of 1941. We agree that no decree could be given against him in that suit as the notice required under section 25 of Act VI of 1884 was not given to him. But the lower Court held him to be an unnecessary party in that suit, and dismissed the suit as against him. We agree that no decree could be given against him in that suit as the notice required under section 25 of Act VI of 1884 was not given to him. But the lower Court held him to be an unnecessary party in that suit, and dismissed the suit as against him. We see no legal objection to the lower Courts having granted a decree against the 1st defendant (Government) who had been given proper notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The decree will not be affected by the addition of the 2nd defendant in the plaint as he had been held to be an unnecessary party to the suit and there was no decree against him. The second conclusion is that section 25 of Act VI of 1884, may conceivably cover claims to compensation against a conservator, surveyor or subordinate or any person acting under his direction though such compensation may not in all cases be claimable against the Government, being compensation for damage caused by the negligent and careless acts of these officials and subordinates in carrying out their duties under the Act albeit not mala fide. So we over-rule this contention. The next contention of the learned Government Pleader was that the lower Court went wrong in holding that the Godavari at the spot where the suit lands, especially the plot E.F.G.H.I., are located is not a tidal and navigable river whose bed vests in the Government. After an exhaustive consideration of the entire evidence in the case we agree with the learned Government Pleader that the lower Court went wrong in this respect though it does not affect the decrees in these suits, and that really the Godavari at this spot is a tidal and navigable river whose bed belongs to the Government. We have had occasion in a recent appeal, A.S. No. 120 of 1947, between more or less the same parties, to deal with this question regarding the Godavari river only a furlong away from the present spot, concerning some islands formed near Patha Gannavaram, on the other side of the Vynatheyam branch of the Godavari to Lanka Gannavaram. The conclusion we arrived at regarding the river and the river bed in this case also is the same and is based on the same grounds. The conclusion we arrived at regarding the river and the river bed in this case also is the same and is based on the same grounds. The law regarding the matter is well settled, and may be stated broadly in five propositions, as we did in A.S.No. 120 of 1947:- (1) The bed of a navigable river in any part of India whether tidal or not, is vested in the Government, and not in the Zamindar or other private person owning lands on both sides of the river, unless it has been granted to such private individual. The Privy Council has laid down this clearly in Maharajah of Pithapuram v. The Province of Madras1. The English Common law rule that the bed of non-tidal rivers, even though they are navigable, belongs to the riparian proprietors, does not apply to Madras State. (2) To create a title to the river bed in the Government, the river should be navigable at that part of it where the disputed plots are situated. (3) The ownership of the bed of the river would depend upon its character in 1802 the time of the permanent settlement and the grant of the adjacent land to the plaintiffs. Province of Madras v. Jagannatha2. (4) A river in India is not navigable in the legal sense unless it is navigable throughout the year, though it need not be navigable for a portion of the day, as at low tide. (5) Facilities for passage of large river crafts, which may not be capable of rising to the dignity of ships, seem to be generally considered sufficient to call a river affording such facilities a navigable river. Secretary of State for India v. Venkatanarasimha Naidu3. The evidence in this case clearly shows that river craft carrying firewood, etc., can freely navigate in this portion of the river at all times of the year except during low tide, and even shows that there is tidal action at this place. We hold that the Vynatheyam, passing between the villages of Lanka Gannavaram and Patha Gannavaram, is a navigable and tidal river at this spot, and that its bed belongs to the Government, though, of course, that will not affect the right of a private owner of lands submerged by that river to those lands when they are re-formed in situ or to lateral accretions to such lands. Till the year 1866 Lanka Gannavaram and Patha Gannavaram admittedly formed part of one single village. In that year, for purposes of revenue convenience, the single village was divided into two separate villages. In A.S.No. 120 of 1947 we held that the river Vynatheyam, at a spot a furlong from the suit plots and adjoining Patha Gannavaram on the opposite side, was a navigable river even at the time of the Permanent Settlement in 1802. We considered that river navigable throughout the year now except at low tide should have been navigable then, the Dowleswaram anicut having even diminished the quantity of water below it, and the river above it being navigable for many miles even now and for years before. In Province of Madrasv. Jagannatha1 a Bench of this Court held that the Vasishta branch of the Godavari from which the Vynatheyam takes off only some three miles from this spot, should have been navigable in the year 1802. There have been also some other cases holding the river Godavari very near the suit plots to be navigable. The oral evidence in the case of disinterested and credible persons, also proves this. But this conclusion of ours regarding the Vynatheyam river, differing from the lower Court, will not help the Government in these suits as we are satisfied, after an exhaustive perusal of the evidence on record, that the lower Court was right in considering all the suit plots to be only re-formations in in situ of ancient zamindari ryoti lands submerged by the river Godavari in 1915 after having been continuously cultivated for more than 60 years. That will apply also to the plot E.F.G.H.I. which too we are satisfied, is only a re-formation in situ of former zamindari ryoti land. The contention of the learned Government Pleader, that the plot E.F.G.H.I. is still river bed , and has not yet become a formation, cannot be upheld in view of the express recital in paragraph 5 of the written statement filed by the Government in O.S.No. 61 of 1944 which admits that the plot E.F.G.H.I. has been formed, though it calls it "an independent formation" in the bed of the river. This plot E.F.G.H.I. is only two or three feet lower in level than the rest of the plots claimed in the suit, and is more than 16 feet above the level of the Godavari, and not a drop of water is found anywhere on this plot. So, we need not consider the further contention of the learned Government Pleader that the lower Court erred in recognising the title of the plaintiff to this plot on the ground of its being a lateral accretion, though it was not set up in the plaint and was covered only by an issue and though it was not consistent with the allegation of re-formation in situ. We are of opinion that the question of lateral formation, having been raised by an issue and covered by the evidence, could have been considered by the lower Court under the law though it is not quite consistent with the plaintiffs’ story of re-formation in situ and though it is not necessary for supporting the plaintiffs" case as they have fully proved their case that this plot too is only re-formation in situ. We see no point in the learned Government Pleader’s claiming that the re-formations in situ were partly due to the conservancy work done by Government. That will not take away the title of the owners to the re-formed lands, even if true, any more than the title of the owner of a stolen or lost jewel is lost by him before the Government police officers recovered it. The next contention of the Government Pleader was that when the orders of the Conservator of Rivers were held by the lower Court itself to be fully justified in the interest of river conservancy, and to be necessary and proper, the plaintiffs should not have been given any damages. We cannot agree. Section 16 of Act VI of 1884 expressly allows compensation for such rightful refusal of permission to cultivate, and that right to compensation has not been taken away by any other Act or Ordinance or circumstance. The mere fact that orders refusing permission for cultivation were proper and in public interests cannot take away the private parties’ right to compensation as no private party need shoulder the whole burden of conferring such a benefit on the public. The mere fact that orders refusing permission for cultivation were proper and in public interests cannot take away the private parties’ right to compensation as no private party need shoulder the whole burden of conferring such a benefit on the public. Thus a plot may be required for constructing defences, or a hospital, or a prison or a school, or a Court, or a cremation ground and yet the Land Acquisition Act under which such lands are acquired usually, not only awards compensation to the private party whose land is acquired for such public purposes, but gives him 15 per cent extra for compulsory acquisition. So, this contention cannot hold good. The last contention of the learned Government Pleader was that the quantum of compensation awarded was excessive and ought to be drastically reduced. The learned counsel for the Maharajah and others who have filed three memoranda of cross-objections and A.S.No.III of 1947, urged on the other hand, that the compensation awarded by the lower Court was totally inadequate and that the entire compensation claimed in those four suits ought to have been granted, especially since the highest bid for the lease was Rs. 10,000 every year. The learned Government Pleader attacked those bids as bogus and nominal, and even the lease to the 3rd plaintiff as a fraudulent act intended to prevent the actual cultivating ryots from getting ryoti rights in those lands. We are not very much concerned in this case with the alleged fraudulent act of the zamindar in giving a lease to the 3rd plaintiff, the Yuvarani of Pittapuram, who has neither bulls nor ploughs of her own and is not likely to cultivate those lands herself. Such leases to members of the zamindar’s family are too numerous, and of too long a practice, to be suddenly declared null and void. On principle there is nothing in law to prevent a zamindar from giving a lease to a member of his family, especially in these days when zamindaries are being abolished and zamindars levelled down to the status of common men. Nor need a lessee show bulls and ploughs of his own or cultivate the land himself, before he can claim the leasehold rights granted to him validly. Nor need a lessee show bulls and ploughs of his own or cultivate the land himself, before he can claim the leasehold rights granted to him validly. In fact many Brahmins and Vysias and others, who do not own ploughs or bulls and do not intend to cultivate the lands themselves, have got leases in their names and those leases cannot be attacked as invalid for those reasons. The learned Government Pleader, did not, therefore, seriously press this portion of his argument. He pressed the other portion of his argument, namely, that the bids were all bogus and nominal ones, and that the auctions were simply held to bolster up the suit claims, that not a pie was paid by the bidders, that the auctions themselves were held only after applications for cultivation had been made in 1940 and it was informally known that they would be refused, and that the auctions were held year after year thereafter in spite of the knowledge that permission to cultivate would be refused in public interests, would all show the bids to be bogus and nominal. We agree regarding this, for the reasons urged by the learned Government Pleader which appeal to us as true and valid. But his further contention that no compensation or damages should have been awarded to the plaintiffs, or, at the most, only some small amount, not exceeding Rs. 25 per acre does not appeal to us. No doubt, one witness examined by the plaintiffs admitted that he sustained loss by clearing similar lanka land of nanal and cultivating it with tobacco. But that was an exceptional case and cannot be relied on. No doubt also, some of the witnesses like P.W.7, speaking to an income of Rs. 200 or Rs. 300 per acre by tobacco cultivation of similar lands, were speaking of lands in Kapileswaram Estate, 17 or 20 miles from this place. It is also true that the Government realised only Rs.7-11-0 to 73-12-0 per acre by leasing out the lanka lands in Mondapu lanka, Kottapalli lanka, Mannapalli lanka, Koderu lanka and Horugerumilli lanka similar to the suit lands, and situated only some 2 to 8 furlongs from the suit lands, though tobacco was raised in the lands in all those five lankas. But Government, it is notorious, realises much less in such leases than private parties do. But Government, it is notorious, realises much less in such leases than private parties do. There is no doubt that there is an element- of surmise and guess in fixing the damages arising out of the refusal of the permission to clear the nanal and do tobacco cultivation on these lanka lands. There is also evidence to show that the normal net income per acre from such lands is only a putti an acre. The lower Court has considered all these factors when rejecting the contention of the Government for awarding no compensation, or a very small sum as compensation, and when rejecting the exhorbitant sums (Rs. 300 to Rs. 560 per acre) claimed by the plaintiffs based on the bids and the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16 and others about the realisation from Kapileswaram lankas and other lands farther away. It has carefully weighed the evidence on both sides and arrived at the figures it did after such weighing and after a local inspection. Generally, appellate Courts are not expected to interfere with such careful assessment of figures by the trial Court, which has seen the witnesses and weighed every bit of evidence, oral and documentary and made also a local inspection. We do not see any reason to depart, from that salutary practice in this case, especially as we too consider the figure fixed by him to be proper. In the end, therefore, we hold that the compensations, or damages, awarded by the lower Court in all the cases were correct and proper, and do not deserve to be interfered with. In the result, all the appeals and memoranda of cross objections are dismissed with costs. Government given two months’ time to pay the costs. K.S. ----- Appeals and memoranda of cross objections dismissed.