Mandatory injunction is unavailable against official removal of obstructions to irrigation flow for public utility.

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of land in Survey Nos. 38/2 and 38/3, covered by Patta No. 512.

He alleged that government officials entered the land, excavated it using a JCB, and removed trees without notice.

The defendants accepted the plaintiff’s title to those survey fields but maintained that the affected area was in adjoining Survey No. 38/4, classified as Channel Poramboke, and that they had removed an obstruction to irrigation water.

The Trial Court granted mandatory and permanent injunctions, and the First Appellate Court affirmed.

The defendants appealed under Section 100 CPC.

An Advocate Commissioner’s report recorded a channel in Survey No. 38/4, but the High Court considered the boundary of the excavated portion disputed.

Whether the plaintiff’s suit for bare injunction was maintainable without seeking a declaration of title.

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in granting mandatory injunction without evidence that the plaintiff had immediately objected to the alleged encroachment.

The Court proceeded under Section 100 CPC, which confines a second appeal to substantial questions of law and ordinarily does not permit interference with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or affected by a substantial error of law.

It stated that a suit for bare injunction may be maintained where the plaintiff’s title is not seriously disputed and the dispute concerns interference with possession.

It also stated that public authorities may protect Government irrigation channels and remove encroachments, but must establish that the affected land is Government land and act in accordance with law, including proper survey and demarcation where private patta land is implicated.

No statute beyond the Section 100 CPC procedural context, or judicial precedent, was identified in the judgment.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s title to Survey Nos. 38/2 and 38/3 was not seriously disputed, so it held that a declaration of title was unnecessary to maintain the suit.

It also observed that the defendants had not convincingly established the precise boundary between those fields and Survey No. 38/4.

Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the trees in the patta land abutting the channel obstructed water flow, that the excavation was undertaken by officials in their official capacity, and that mandatory relief should not be granted in the circumstances.

Although the second substantial question concerned the timing of the plaintiff’s objection, the Court noted his notice and representations and relied instead on its conclusion concerning public utility and the excavation.

The reasoning thus contains tension between its finding that the boundary was not established and its conclusion that the excavation and removal of trees were justified.

It ordered no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.