JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Hardeep Mahida, learned advocate for the appellants- original defendants and Mr. P J Kanabar, learned advocate for the respondents- original plaintiffs. 2. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original defendants- Board being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.6.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2012, whereby, the learned Judge has partly decreed the suit in favour of the respondents – original plaintiffs directing to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- to be realized from the original defendants with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit fill its realization. 3. The facts as borne out from the record are briefly reproduced herein under: 3.1. The plaintiffs are the joint owners of an agricultural land bearing survey no.118/1 A paiki 25 total admeasuring 1-61-88 Hectare Are sq mtrs approximately 10 vighas of agricultural land of village Bambhaniya, Tal: Kunkavav, Dist. Amreli. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they used to take crops like groundnut, cotton, wheat, etc. throughout the years. The defendant no.2 board had laid down an underground pipeline to supply drinking water to the people of village Bambhaniya. This underground pipeline was 4 ft wide in diameter and it passes through the land of the plaintiffs, whereby an air valve was fixed for the purpose of distribution of the water to the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the month of July and August 2010 the leakage of water had started from the lower and upper part of the air valve which has resulted into spread of the water over the land of the plaintiffs causing extensive damages to the land of the plaintiffs as well as to the standing crop. The letter dated 26.10.2011 was addressed to the defendant no.3 Gujarat Water Infrastructure Company Limited who has been entrusted the work to manage and administer the water supply pipeline by the defendant no.2 Board. The defendant no.3 had not responded to such a complaint. On 30.3.2011, a heavy bulk of water was released from Narmada Canal through the main line and because of leakage of air valve, resulting in loss to the land as well as to the standing crop of wheat of the plaintiffs. The defendant no.3 had not responded to such a complaint. On 30.3.2011, a heavy bulk of water was released from Narmada Canal through the main line and because of leakage of air valve, resulting in loss to the land as well as to the standing crop of wheat of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also, therefore, approached the concerned Gram Panchayat by lodging a complaint on 31.3.2011. The panchayat in presence of the plaintiffs and other witnesses had drawn panchnama in this regard and a map was also prepared in presence of Panchas, Sarpanch and Talai cum Mantri of Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs had thereafter on the same day made a representation to the Ministry of Agriculture, State of Gujarat and had also written a letter on 1.4.2011, recommending damage sustained. The concerned Minister vide letter dated 21.4.2011 had informed the defendant no.2 Board to take necessary action in this regard, however, no steps were taken. The plaintiffs once again wrote a letter to the defendant nos.2 and 3 on 5.7.2011 by registered Post AD thereby providing necessary details with regard to the damages sustained by the plaintiffs and seeking compensation for such damages. The request was also made to shift the air valve from the land of the plaintiffs. On the same day, a letter was also addressed to the Minister of Agriculture of State as well as to the Member of Parliament which was in the form of notice. In response to the aforesaid complaint, one Shri Utpal Saheb and Devsibhai associated with defendant no.3 had visited the suit land on 12.7.2011, who according to plaintiffs have verified the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had again written a letter to the defendant no.2 in this regard. The similar representations were followed to the Collector, Amreli also vide letters dated 7.4.2011 and 13.7.2011. In absence of any compensation derived from the defendant no.2, the plaintiffs were constrained to approach the Court of learned Civil Judge seeking damages for an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- including loss of Rs.1,40,000/- towards the damages of destruction of standing crop on the land and loss suffered due to damages caused to the land to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. The suit was registered as Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2012 with the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. The suit was registered as Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2012 with the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. It transpires from the record that pending the aforesaid suit, the officer of the defendant no.3 company visited the suit land i.e. almost after a lapse of 18 months during the period from 25.2.2012 to 27.2.2012 and had undertaken the exercise of removing and shifting air valve from the suit land. In response to the summons issued by the Court, the defendants have appeared before the Court and have submitted their written statement at Exh.19 inter alia disputing the averments made in the plaint. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground of mis-joinder of parties as well as on the ground of absence of the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to lodging of the suit. As regard the contention raised by the plaintiffs, the defendants have contended that the air valve was generally fitted at a distance of 300 meters from the main pipe line and is fixed in the government land. The connection for water supply was provided at the instance of the Gram Panchayat and hence it was the responsibility of the concerned Gram Panchayat to manage the leakage which had taken place at the land of the plaintiffs. It was therefore contended that in absence of the Gram Panchayat being joined as party defendants, the suit was not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. The defendant board had tried to shirk their responsibility by contending that though leakage has been caused, the same has been caused due to the negligence on the part of the Gram Panchayat. The Court upon appreciating the pleadings of the respective parties, proceeded to frame the issues at Exh.20 which are reproduced herein under: “1.Whether the plaintiffs prove the Narmada Canal Pipeline passes through the land Survey No.118/1 A Paiki 25 owned by them ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that as a result of leakage in the air valve erected for the canal by the defendants, the land and crop of the plaintiffs have been damaged ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the damages caused to their land and crop ? If yes, what amount. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get interest on the said amount ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the damages caused to their land and crop ? If yes, what amount. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get interest on the said amount ? If yes, on what amount and from which date ? 5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for mis joinder of party ? 6. Whether the defendants prove that while taking water connection by the Gram Panchayat, leakage was occurred due to the negligence of the Gram Panchayat ? 7. Whether the suit is barred by non-joinder of party ? 8. What order and decree ?” 3.2. To meet with the aforesaid issues, plaintiffs have led oral as well as documentary evidence to establish their case. The details of such evidence are reproduced herein under as under: Oral evidence: Sr. No. Name of witness Exh. 1. Dayalbhai Ramjibhai Boghani 24 2 Vajubhai Bhikhabhai Dobariya 47 Documentary evidence Sr. No. Name of witness Exh. 1. Power of attorney in favour of Dayalbhai Ramjibhai Bhogani. 25 2 Extract of village form no.8-A A/C No.466. 26 3. Extract of village form nos. 7 & 12 27 4 Extract of village from No.6 entry no.1273 28 5 Copy of letter dated 11.10.2010 written to the Deputy Ex. Engr. 29 6 Copy of letter dated 26.10.2010 written to the Manager,GWIL Co. 30 7 Copy of letter written to the Minister of Agriculture. 31 8. Panchrojkam 32 9 Map of the spot. 33 10 Copy of letter dated 1.4.2011 written to the Exh. Engr. 34 11 Letter written by Minister of Agriculture to the plaintiff 35 12 Copy of letter dated 5.7.2011 written to the Deputy Ex. Eng. 36 13 Copy of letter dated 5.7.2011 written to the General Manager, GWIL 37 14 Copy of letter dated 12.7.2011 written to the Sr. Manager GWIL 38 15 Copy of letter dated 13.7.2011 written to the Collector, Amreli by Member of Parliament. 39 16 Copy of letter dated 4.2.2012 written to the Sr. Manager GWIL 40 17 Receipt of RPAD 41 18 Acknowledgment of RPAD 42 & 43. 19 Copy of notice under Section 80 of the CPC 44 20 Four Photographs 45 3.3. On the other hand, defendant no.2 Board has examined the witness viz. Kalpeshkumar Khodabhai Teraiya whose evidence has come on record at Exh.55, who is manager of the Gujarat Water Infrastructure Company Limited. 19 Copy of notice under Section 80 of the CPC 44 20 Four Photographs 45 3.3. On the other hand, defendant no.2 Board has examined the witness viz. Kalpeshkumar Khodabhai Teraiya whose evidence has come on record at Exh.55, who is manager of the Gujarat Water Infrastructure Company Limited. Learned Judge upon appreciation and evaluation of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the submissions made by the respective parties has answered the aforesaid issues with reasons as under: “1. In affirmative. 2. In affirmative. 3. As per final order. 4. As per final order. 5. In negative. 6. In negative. 7. In negative. 8. As per final order.” 3.4. The learned Judge while examining the issue of leakage of air valve has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have succeeded to prove that as a result of leakage of air valve installed for the distribution of water by the defendants, the land and crops of the plaintiffs have been damaged. Looking to the various documentary evidence brought on record, the learned Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the defendants have remained negligent as it was defendant no.2 board and the defendant no.3 company who had fixed the air valve and pipelines and were responsible for managing pipelines and the leakage. The learned Judge has also noticed that it has clearly transpired from the cross examination of the sole witness of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 that while taking water connection by the Gram Panchayat the leakage had occurred. The defendants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove their case that the leakage had taken place due to negligence on the part of the Gram Panchayat. In fact, the defendant witness at Exh.55 has admitted that it is the responsibility of his company that no leakage take place from the air valve of the main pipeline. Thus, the learned Judge has arrived at a conclusion that responsibility to maintain the air valve lies on the defendant no.2 board. With this findings and conclusion, the learned Judge has partly decreed the suit thereby holding the plaintiff entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Hence, present appeal at the instance of the original defendant no.2 board as well as defendant no.3 company. 4. Hence, present appeal at the instance of the original defendant no.2 board as well as defendant no.3 company. 4. The present appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 18.02.2020. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had directed the entire amount of compensation to be invested in a fixed deposit receipts with any nationalized bank and the interest to be accrued on such deposit was directed to be retained. Considering the request of the learned advocate for the respondent, the matter was taken up for final hearing. 5. Mr. Hardeep Mahida, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Mr. P J Kanabar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 original plaintiffs. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants had at the outset invited my attention to the issues framed by the learned Judge. The principal arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant has disputed the liability of the appellants board by contending that in fact it was the Gram Panchayat concerned who was required to care of the maintenance of the air valve as the only obligation which was there on the appellant board as well as on the appellant company was to lay down pipelines for supply of water to the concerned Gram Panchayat. According to the learned advocate, the learned Judge failed to appreciate the above aspect by not appreciating the evidence of the witness of the defendant board in right perspective. It was also submitted that the learned Judge has seriously erred in accepting the panchnama arrived at Exh.32 and the map produced at Exh.33 which according to the learned advocate was not drawn in presence of the appellant and therefore, the same could not have been admitted as evidence. Learned advocate has also submitted that no cogent material has been brought on record in the nature of bills to indicate the actual damage sustained by the plaintiffs. It was therefore, submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence being brought on record the amount of compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest is required to be quashed and set aside, more particularly, when the necessary party it is the case Gram Panchayat concerned has not been joined as party respondent. 7. Mr. P J Kanabar, learned advocate for the respondents-original plaintiffs has objected to the aforesaid submissions. 7. Mr. P J Kanabar, learned advocate for the respondents-original plaintiffs has objected to the aforesaid submissions. The attention of this Court was invited to the reasons assigned by the learned Judge while answering the issue with regard to the negligence of the defendants. According to the learned advocate, the reasons assigned by the learned Judge are in light of the evidence brought on record. Much emphasis was led on the cross examination of the witness wherein he has clearly admitted the fact that the concerned Board had entrusted the work to the defendant company the management of the pipelines as well as that of the air valve under the supervision of the Board. With such evidence on record, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Judge in holding the defendant board and the defendant no.3 company responsible for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. As regards the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants for determination of the compensation is concerned, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti reported in AIR 1966 SC 1750 as well as in the case of Faiyazhussain Nazirahmed Ansari vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2018 (3) GCD 2144. It was submitted that the Rule of res ipsa loquitur general purport of the words means that the accident 'speaks for itself' or tells its story. It was further submitted that it is not always necessary that direct proof of negligence should be adduced by the plaintiffs, the Courts have that liberty to draw inference from the proved facts. He has therefore submitted that once the court had found the defendants negligence in absence of any reasonable explanation to say how the accident had occurred without negligence on their part, this Court may not entertain the appeal. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and appreciating their submissions in light of the evidence placed on record, indisputably the suit land belongs to the original plaintiffs and the water pipeline was laid down by the defendant no.2 board in the suit land of the plaintiffs. It is undisputed fact that pipeline was laid down by the defendant no.2 board to meet with his obligation to supply water to the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is undisputed fact that pipeline was laid down by the defendant no.2 board to meet with his obligation to supply water to the concerned Gram Panchayat. In order to supply water, the air valve is required to be fixed at a distance of 300 meters on such a pipeline by the defendant no.2 board. The plaintiffs have brought on record the documentary evidence which includes letter dated 26.10.2011 addressed to defendant no.3 company who is entrusted with the work to manage the pipeline laid down by the defendant no. 2 board. Such letter has been brought on record and has been proved by the plaintiffs at Exh.30. Apart from the aforesaid letter, the plaintiffs have also addressed various communications / representations to the respective state authorities i.e. from the date of incident i.e. 31.3.2011 till October 2011 thereby complaining about the heavy leakage of water from the air valve fitted with the pipeline laid down by the defendant no.2 board. The overall appreciation of the aforesaid letters, in light of the plaintiffs evidence, clearly borne out that throughout repeated requests / complaints were made to the respective officers, the same has not been attended. It has come on record that the officers of defendant no.3 company visited the suit land only on 12.07.2011 whereby the request of the plaintiffs to shift the pipeline was acceded to and was ultimately shifted. From the aforesaid events, it appears that the defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 have remained negligent which had led to the explosion of the air valve resulting into heavy released of the water into fields of the plaintiffs consequently leading to the damage of the standing crops. It can also be gathered from the evidence of the plaintiffs and the documentary evidence brought on record, more particularly, the panchnama produced on record at Exh.31 and the map produced at Exh.32, it clearly transpires that the plaintiffs had sustained loss of not only standing crops but the field of the plaintiffs was extensively damaged. With such evidence noticed on record, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Judge in making assessment of the damages to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- being sustained by the plaintiffs towards loss of standing crop of wheat as well as damage caused to the land of the plaintiffs. With such evidence noticed on record, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Judge in making assessment of the damages to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- being sustained by the plaintiffs towards loss of standing crop of wheat as well as damage caused to the land of the plaintiffs. So far as awarding of interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is concerned, seems to be a reasonable which calls for no interference of this Court in present appeal, more particularly, when the plaintiffs have successfully proved the loss sustained because of the negligence on the part of the appellants-original defendant nos. 2 and 3. No error has been pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant which calls for any interference of this Court in the present appeal. 9. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. Since the appeal is dismissed, the amount of compensation lying in the form of fixed deposit receipts with the concerned Nationalized Bank is hereby directed to be released and disbursed in favour of the claimants- original plaintiffs subject to due verification preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. With this, present appeal stands disposed of as not entertained. Records and proceedings of the original suit are directed to be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial court.