Telangana High Court
Edla Kanaka Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 17 September, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ A.S.No.346 OF 2020
% 17--09--2025
# Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy
... Appellant
vs.
$ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, I&CAD,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ponnamm Mallaiah Goud
^Counsel for Respondents : Government Pleader
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Case referred:
1. (2020) 11 SCC 629
2/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
A.S.No.346 OF 2020
Between:
Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, I&CAD,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 17.09.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
A.S.NO.346 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.153 of 2016, dated 09.07.2019
by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff, respondents are the defendants in the
suit (OS.No.153 of 2016).
3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of
Rs.6,24,549/- against the respondents-defendants with interest
@ 18% per annum.
4.1. The appellant-plaintiff is the Ex-Chairman of Water Users
Association (herein after called as WUA), Veldi and executed works
under Veldi Ayacut in Sri Ram Sagar Project (herein after called as
SRSP), entered into contract with respondent No.4-defendant No.4 for
the execution of 10 civil works.
4.2. The works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff through the
agreements vide Col.No.4 of the Annexure in the plaint. The said
agreements were concluded by and between the appellant-plaintiff and
respondent No.4-defendant No.4 on behalf of the Government to
execute the works. The appellant-plaintiff has commenced the work
4/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
with an intention to complete the same within the agreements period
and has done the same without compromising in the quality and
quantity. The in-charge Field Engineer was satisfied and recorded the
measurements as per actuals, all the material supplied and works
executed have been checked and measured by the competent
Engineers. The Government in their Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V &
E)/A1/2010-22, dated 28.04.2011 and 3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/2010-26,
dated 16.06.2011, after the lapse of about 3 years from the date of
execution, instructions have been imparted to inspect the works. The
fact of the matter is that the works have been executed and recorded
in different Measurement Books (herein after called as MBs) during
2008-09 itself. The in-charge Field Officers concerned have recorded
the measurements.
4.3. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I,
Hyderabad has formulated inspection teams for Civil and Mechanical
works involving the team of Engineers working under other than the
Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, Stage-I, Hyderabad. The
civil works are 12 in number, they have been executed to the best
satisfaction of the departmental authorities. Works were measured
and checked by the competent authority and also by Superintending
Engineers of other circle. The quality control authorities have also
inspected the works and no remarks were raised, they were satisfied
with the execution of works. The Government in their Memo No.
5/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011 issued guidelines
regarding making payment to WUAs. As per Para No.2 of the said
Government Memo, two foremost conditions have to be satisfied for
making payments i.e., a) Existence of a bonafide agreement (b) work
executed as per the agreement conditions. 100% verification has been
done by the Team of Engineers and the conditions were satisfied in
respect of all the civil works executed by the appellant-plaintiff. The
conditions stipulated at Para Nos.10 and 11 of the Government Memo,
in fact applies where the recorded measurements were often found to
be incredulous, but not to credulous measurements. Superintendent
Engineer and Quality control authorities were satisfied with the
measurements recorded in the M-books. Restriction of payment to
50% and 70% is void ab initio and violative of constitutional
provisions. The amounts recovered from the work, bills of other works
are illustrated in the statements annexed to the plaint and the
amounts worked out for 12 civil works is Rs.6,24,549/- which needs to
be refunded to the appellant-plaintiff as the recovery is illegal.
4.4. The amounts recovered by the respondents-defendants from the
appellant-plaintiff is manifestly illegal and patently arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, hence the
respondents-defendants are liable to refund the recovered amount
with interest @ 18% per annum. Appellant-plaintiff has got issued a
legal notice to the respondents-defendants on 07.07.2015 but they
6/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
failed to give reply. As per the provisions contained in the special
conditions of contract, the claims above Rs.50,000/- in value shall be
decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by
Arbitration and the value of the suit is above Rs.3,00,000/-.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are located at L.M.D.
Colony, Thimmapur (M), Karimnagar District which is within the
territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge
at Karimnagar and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.
5. Respondent No.4-defendant No.4 has filed his written statement
which is adopted by respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendant Nos.1 to 3.
Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission initiated action on the basis of
Writ Petition No.15126 of 2009 which in turn lead to Departmental
Enquiry. Inspection team inspected their work on the basis of V & E in
their Appraisal Note No.13, dated 05.02.2010. Appellant-plaintiff was
entrusted with 12 works and 10 works are only executed by the
Agency. The recoveries are made as per 100% verification report
submitted by the team and the same is communicated to the
Government for payment. Measurements were randomly made by all
the Engineering staff to the satisfaction on the existence of bonafide
agreement and executed as per the agreement conditions with the
applied team deduction in the Measurement Books which were
recommended for payment by the Government. The recoveries were
made based on the Government Memos. G.Vasanth Reddy filed
7/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
WP.No.15126 of 2009, seeking enquiry on the irregularities in the
works executed under SRSP. The Vigilance Enquiry in their appraisal
Report No.13, dated 05.02.2010, while submitting the report, advised
the department to conduct detailed enquiry in all the maintenance
works executed in between 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10. The
appellant-plaintiff and other contractors who executed SRSP
maintenance works for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are
well aware of the enquiries and proposed recoveries by the 100%
verification team which were effected for the above works before
payment and the same is accepted by the appellant-plaintiff in
M-Book, hence, the plaintiff has no moral right for insisting prior
Notice. The recoveries are made as per the 100% Verification Team
and Report, accepted and communicated by the Government for
payment and prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The following issues are framed by the learned Trial Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?
2. To what relief?
7. Appellant-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A1 to
A7. One G.Srinivas is examined as DW.1 on behalf of respondent
No.4-defendant No.4 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
8. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by
the parties and after going through the documents thereon, has
dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff.
8/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial
Court failed to appreciate the case in a proper prospective, failed to
look into the departmental rules and was influenced by the
Government Department, wrongly dismissed the suit. Appellant has
filed details of the works done under the agreement and Ex.B2
Measurement No.972/B, which shows the details of measurements of
works executed by the appellant-plaintiff. Respondents-defendants
admitted in the written statement at Para No.3 about the contents of
the Annexure annexed to the plaint and at Para No.5 they admitted
that there is no dispute with regard to the quality and quantity and
they illegally recovered Rs.6,24,549/- from the appellant-plaintiff
without any consent and not even attested the corrections made by
the respondents-defendants as required under Para 294 of PWD,
Accounts code and Article 175 (6) of Financial code.
9.2. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of
DW.1 and ought to have looked into Ex.B1. Appellant counsel further
submitted that measurements were recorded on 28.06.2009 whereas
the recovery is effected by BTR No.211, dated 10.05.2013 as against
the defect liability period of one year as per clause 28 of TDSS r/w
GOMS No.94 I & CAD dated 01.07.2003 and the alleged recovery is far
late after the completion of defect liability period which is void ab initio
but the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit. The Trial Court
ought to have seen that when G.Vasanth Reddy has filed WP.No.15126
9/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
of 2009 challenging the specific action of awarding works on
nomination basis to ineligible persons but no where it is mentioned in
the Writ Petition regarding quality and quantity of works executed and
the Writ Petition came to be dismissed. The Trial Court has not
appraised the weight of evidence produced by the appellant-plaintiff
with that of Ex.B2-Measurement Book Record. There is no iota of
evidence in the Vigilance Enquiry Report No.13 dated 05.10.2010 as
no remarks are made against works executed by the appellant-
plaintiff, the burden of proof lies on the respondents-defendants to
produce the enquiry report but the appellant-plaintiff is not responsible
for the unknown enquiry report. The corrections made by the
respondents-defendants are not been attested by any Officer as
required under Para 294 of the PWD, Accounts code and Article 175
(6) of the Financial code. The Trial Court erred in saying that the
tenure of Water Users Association President is completed in 2010 and
the present suit is filed in the year 2016. The total amount as per
Measurement Book Record is paid as per Ex.B2, the amount recovered
is at Page No.33 vide BTR No.211, dated 10.05.2013. Order II Rule 2
(i) of CPC says "every suit shall include the whole claim which the
plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of cause of action" and prayed to
set aside the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submits that
the Association has entered into agreement with the Government and
10/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
in the year 2013, Government has recovered Rs.6,24,549/- basing on
100% verification report submitted by the team, no interference is
called for, prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed his written
arguments in the form of Abstract and also relied on a decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shivnarayan (Dead) by Legal
Representatives Vs. Maniklal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives
and Others 1.
12. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.
13. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned
judgment passed in OS.No.153 of 2016 by Principle Senior Civil Judge
at Karimnagar, dated 09.07.2019 suffers from any perversity or
illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?
14. The learned Trial Court in its judgment at Para No.23 observed
that the appellant-plaintiff failed to challenge the enquiry report and
ought to have sought the relief of declaration which is interlinked with
the relief of recovery of money, thereby the suit is not maintainable.
It is no body's case and the Trial Court has travelled beyond the
pleadings, the same is not sustainable.
(2020) 11 SCC 629
11/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
15. It is not the case of the respondents-defendants that the
plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit but the Trial Court without
any pleadings arrived and discussed in Para No.24 of its judgment that
the tenure of the appellant-plaintiff was completed in the year 2010
and the present suit is filed in the year 2016, at the time of filing the
suit, he was not a President and that PW.1 (appellant herein-plaintiff)
did not obtain any authorization letter from the Members of the
Association and directly filed the suit and the suit is not maintainable.
The said finding is against the pleadings of the parties, hence the same
is not sustainable.
16. It is also not the case of the respondents-defendants that the
suit is bad for joinder of cause of action. The observation of the Trial
Court at Para No.25 of its judgment that suit for 10 different works is
not maintainable and that the plaintiff failed to prove the reasons of
joinder of cause of action, when looked into the cause of actions
individually, this Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the case
and that the suit is not maintainable for misjoinder of cause of action.
The Trial Court has travelled beyond the pleadings, hence the
observation in Para No.25 of the judgment is not sustainable, hence
Shivnarayan case1 is not dealt with.
17. As the suit is filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the burden is on
him to prove the same to recover the suit amount.
12/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
18. Ex.A2 is the legal notice, dated 07.07.2015 got issued by the
appellant-plaintiff to respondent Nos.1 to 4-defendant Nos.1 to 4
wherein it is stated that Water Users Association Chairman, Veldi have
executed certain civil works in Division No.4 of GVC-IV, LMD Colony,
Karimnagar under the administrative control of the Administrator-cum-
Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I, Hyderabad during the year 2008-09
wherein all the works have been checked by the competent authority
and also payments were made as per the recorded measurements.
The Government has issued Memos vide Exs.A4 and A5 after the lapse
of 4 years and the civil works are 10 in number which have been
executed to the satisfaction of the Departmental Authorities for
Rs.5,97,845/- which needs to be refunded to the plaintiff as the
recovery is illegal.
19. It is mentioned in the plaint that the appellant-plaintiff and
respondent No.4-defendant No.4 entered into contract for execution of
10 civil works shown in the Annexure. On perusal of the Annexure to
the plaint which statement shows the list of works from 2008-09,
2009-10. Captioned as recovery statement of Sri E.Kanaka Reddy,
Water Users Association (WUA President Wealthy) wherein he has
shown 12 works and the amount recovered shown therein is
Rs.6,24,549/- which is the suit amount, but Ex.A2 legal notice shows
with regard to 10 civil works and the amount recovered is
Rs.5,97,845/-. It is the plaintiff who has to explain how he is entitled
13/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
to recover Rs.6,24,549/-. Ex.B1 is the agreement No.AB
No.291/EE/Divn.No.4/GVC.4/DB/2008-09 dated 19.01.2009. The
nature of work is Estimate for filling Pot Holes, Rain Gullies & forming
Embankment on L/S Bank for 1R of 3LA of DBM-6 of Kakatiya Canal
under WUA Veldhi-I. The estimated amount with sanction reference is
Rs.3,17,000/-. Value of work to be done as per the agreement rate is
Rs.3,02,541/-. Contract is entered between Government of Andhra
Pradesh Irrigation and Command Area Department and the name of
the agency/contractor is Edla Kanaka Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy, R/o.
Veldhi, President Water User Association, Veldhi-I of Manakondur
Mandal. A schedule is annexed to Ex.B1 which says Estimate for filling
Pot Holes, Rain Gullies & forming Embankment. The probable quantity
is 6912.500 Sq.meters and 2328.355 cum. The total amount shown
is Rs.3,02,541/-.
20. As per Ex.A1, reference to agreement number and date are
mentioned in Column No.4; amount is shown in Column No.5; M.B.No.
is shown in Column No.6; Number of Bills paid is shown in Column
No.7; Amount paid as per M.B. is shown in Column No.8; Recovery
amount is shown in Column No.20. Nine (9) Agreements are dated
18.01.2009 for different kinds of works with different agreement
numbers. Three (3) agreements are dated 28.02.2009 with different
agreement numbers which are shown in column No.3 of Ex.A1.
Column No.2 is name of work. It is worth mentioning that Ex.B1
14/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
agreement is in respect of Item No.5 of Ex.A1. The total recovered
amount as per Ex.A1 is Rs.6,24,549/-.
21. Ex.A4 is the instructions issued by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh Irrigation and C.A.D. dated 28.04.2011 in Memo
No.3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-2022) where in Para No.2 it is stated
that after examination of the report of ACE, SRSP Stage-I and the
representations of WUAs, it has been decided to take up 100%
verification of the works of SRSP Stage-I executed by the WUAs to
assess the quality and quantity of the works for the purpose of
preparing proposals for making payments to the farmer's
organizations.
22. Ex.A5 is the Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26 dated
16.06.2011 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation and
C.A.D. guide lines are issued for processing the payments in respect of
O&M works taken up during the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 in
SRSP Stage-I. Guideline Nos.1, 2, 3, 10, 11 and 13 are as under:
1. The cardinal requirement for processing the payments in
respect of any work, in relaxation of G.O.Ms.No.46 of I&CAD
(General.IV) Department dated 24.02.2007, shall be: A)
Existence of a bonafide agreement B) Work executed as
per the agreement conditions.
2. No payment shall be processed if the work in question
does not satisfy the above conditions. Thus, works wherein
agreements were concluded by the parties not competent to
do so, and works where the dates of agreements were
15/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
anterior to the dates of purchase of the stamp paper, shall
not be processed.
3. Works where fraudulent practices were noticed, such as
recording of physically non-existent works, duplicate
recording of the same work, works where M-Book recordings
are incomplete/disjointed/or were tampered with or altered,
shall be summarily rejected.
10. In case of jungle clearance too, processing of payments
needs to be restricted to realistic quantities since the
recorded quantities were often found to be incredulous. The
teams therefore shall verify the site, and shall allow only up
to a maximum of 50% of the recorded quantities for the
purpose of processing of payments.
11. In respect of the works related to laying of inspection
paths/gravel filling etc., the site shall be verified in the first
instance and processing of payments shall be restricted to a
maximum of 70% of the quantities recorded in the "M"
Books.
13. Each WUA/Agency shall be taken as an individual unit
for processing payments. Fraudulent works, if any, shall be
listed WUA/Agency wise. Payments processed by the
inspection teams in case of each WUA/Agency, shall be
adjusted against the payments already made, and the
amounts recoverable on account of fraud. The final payment
due shall accordingly be arrived at".
23. Ex.A6 is the information obtained by the appellant-plaintiff
under Right to Information Act, dated 08.09.2016. Enclosure to Ex.A6
is with regard to MB No.972/B captioned as First and Final Bill and the
16/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
total value of the work done is Rs.2,12,179/-, after standard deduction
a cheque for Rs.1,51,831/- is issued to the appellant-plaintiff on
16.08.2013; MB No.966/B shows that total value of the work done is
Rs.2,15,938/- and an amount of Rs.61,400/- is deducted towards
standard deductions, and an amount of Rs.1,54,508/- by way of
cheque dated 16.08.2013; MB No.777/B is also an another bill, the
total value of the work done is Rs.1,10,481/-, standard deductions are
Rs.26,984/-, Net amount paid is Rs.83,497/-. Another bill is in respect
of MB No.975/B, the total value of the work done is Rs.43,325/- and
the deduction is Rs.5,748/- and the amount paid by way of cheque is
Rs.37,577/- vide dated 16.08.2013; MB No.803/B, total value of the
work is Rs.2,06,809/- and the deductions are Rs.47,899/- and
payment made is Rs.1,58,910/- by way of cheque dated 18.07.2009,
MB No.802/B, total value of the work is Rs.2,04,423/- and the
deductions are Rs.47,287/- and amount paid by way of cheque is
Rs.1,57,136/- vide dated 18.07.2009; MB No.776/B, total value of the
work is Rs.71,109/- and the deductions are Rs.6,298/- and amount
paid by way of cheque is Rs.64,811/- dated 18.07.2009; Another
enclosure to Ex.A6 states that "as per the team leader Enquiry Report
submitted by the team leader and accepted by the Government vide
Memo No.3697/sec-VII (V&E) A1/2010-40 dated 20.03.2013 amount
as per verification is Rs.40,836/-, final bill paid as per MB is
Rs.71,109/- recovery is to be made is Rs.30,273/-. There are lots of
corrections to the enclosures of Ex.A6.
17/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
24. Appellant-plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that
there are separate agreements for each work as per Ex.A1, he further
stated that he has filed the present suit for Rs.6,00,000/- and odd and
he has not specifically mentioned in the pleadings with regard to
nature of each work and he cannot say how he has arrived to an
amount of Rs.6,24,549/- and the works carried are as per column No.2
in Ex.A1.
25. The evidence of respondent No.4 as DW.1 is that altogether
12 works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff and they have
deducted the amount as per the enquiry report and the works are by
way of separate agreements, recorded separately in MB and the
amounts were paid as per the Measurement Book Records. In his
cross-examination he stated that as per Article 175 (6) of the Financial
code, the check measurement were done with an intention to find out
the irregularities and defects in the work, the Quality Control Unit will
randomly check up the total work and after making the entire
verification, the record will be handed over to the Department, after
furnishing the record the watch and ward will be done by the
Department only and two years liable period is there as per the
agreement, as per GOMS No.94 for original works, the defect liability
period is of two years and in case of maintenance works the period is
one year and in the present case, the work was done in the year
2008-09 and they have deducted the amount basing on GOMS
18/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
No.3697 dated 16.06.2011, the Government has issued Memos and
basing on the Memos they have deducted the amount. In the year
2009, the work satisfactory report was issued to the appellant-plaintiff
by the Department and the contractor issued release and discharge
certificate. After completion of the work and till the recovery of the
amount the water circulation work was in proper manner and they
have admitted in their written statement about the recovery of amount
in Para No.3 without prejudice to the other submissions and the
Annexure is not denied.
26. As admitted by the appellant-plaintiff that each work is followed
by separate agreements which is fortified with Ex.A1 wherein the
agreement numbers were mentioned in column No.4. Appellant-
plaintiff has not filed the copies of the agreement for the works done
by him as per column No.2 of Ex.A1. Except Ex.B1, appellant has
failed to plead and prove the works carried out by them as per Column
No.2 of Ex.A1. Material particulars are missing in the pleadings and
the Government has deducted the amounts shown in Ex.A1 i.e.,
Rs.6,24,549/-. In Ex.A6, different MB numbers are mentioned for the
works carried out by the appellant-plaintiff and it is the plaintiff who
has to plead and prove when the works were completed. Plaint is
vague and silent with regard to the works done by the appellant-
plaintiff as per Ex.A1. In Ex.A1 from column No.9 to 20, the recovery
amounts were mentioned therein under different heads. It is worth
19/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.346_2020
mentioning that it is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he has
done only 10 works as per Ex.A2, and the same is also mentioned in
Para No.3 of the plaint and shown 12 works in Para No.8.
27. Appellant-plaintiff has to prove his case and he failed to
establish the same. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence of the parties and rightly dismissed the suit. This Court is of
the view that the judgment does not require interference of this Court
and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
28. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed without costs.
Miscellaneous application/s if any, stands closed.
_________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
17th September, 2025.
PLV
