Full Judgment
S. Parvatha Rao, President:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the 1st respondent, Mrs. V. Lakshmi Kumari, is not present though she filed her appearance.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the un- successful complainant against the order of the Prakasam District Forum dismissing his O.P. No. 22/1996 by order dated 30.1.1997. The record of the District Forum is before us. The case of the complainant/appellant herein was that he applied to the opposite parties for loan for pisciculture purpose by digging a tank in his land. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,15,000/- and out of which, according to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to him on 15.1.1995 and Rs. 11,000/- was paid on 16.2.1995 by the 3rd opposite party. He also further stated in his complaint that by the end of May, 1995 he spent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards formation of tank bund in his land of an extent of Ac. 2.52 cents with the earth dug up in the same land and getting some transported from outside also. Thus in all a total sum of Rs. 26,000/- was released by the 3rd opposite party in respect of the said loan. According to the complainant he was not released any further amounts and inspite of his several representations there was no further action from the opposite parties for releasing the sanctioned loan. According to him there was no reason whatsoever for them for withholding the balance amount of loan except political considerations. According to him, because of the partial work done by him in the land in question, it had to be kept fallow and he could not fill up that tank and purchase the fish seed consequent to which he incurred a huge loss. Under those circumstances, he approached the Prakasam District Forum for redress.
3. The opposite parties appeared and filed their versions/counters. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties stated that the balance loan amounts were not released because the complainant failed to satisfy them about the availability of alternative sources of water and did not file the water utilisation certificate from the concerned Revenue authorities. They also stated that they orally as well as in writing asked the complainant to furnish the same. The 3rd opposite party denied that any political or other considerations were involved and stated that the complainant was bound to submit the permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer and also water utilisation certificate for the acqua farm, in view of the fact that the complainant did not have any alternative sources of water like his own well or borewell for filling up the fish pond with water.
4. The District Forum by its order dated 30.1.1997 dismissed the O.P. The District Forum observed that according to the opposite parties the production of water utilisation certificate was a condition precedent for releasing the balance of loan amount and that the opposite parties also filed xerox copy of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in a similar case. After referring to the facts of the matter, the District Forum observed as follows :
"It is not even the case of the complainant that he obtained authorisation for drawing water from the nearby canal or stream. What all he obtained is permission to do fish farming, in his land. No authorization is given to him for drawing water from any Government source. There is force in the contention of opposite parties that the balance of loan amount could not be released for non-production of water utilisation certificate by the complainant."
In the result, the District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not releasing the balance loan amount.
5. In the memorandum of grounds the appellant/complainant sought to contend that he obtained permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer to do fish farming and that implied the water utilisation permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer and that no separate order was necessary and that production of a separate water utilisation certificate was not a condition precedent and no rules or regulations to that effect were in existence. We have the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer of March, 1993 permitting the complainant to utilise his land in Survey Number 286 of Muppavaram village of an extent of Ac. 2.56 cents for forming a fish tank. It was specifically mentioned that the complainant applied for utilising the said land for setting up a fish pond and for pisciculture on the ground that the said land was low lying and it gets inundated when there was heavy rain and consequently no crop was being raised therein and it was therefore kept fallow without any cultivation and that under those circumstances he should be permitted to utilise the same for pisciculture by digging fish tanks. Permission was granted to his raising a big bund of 3½ yards height and 4 yards width in view of the fact that a National Highway was on the eastern side of the land.
6. We have carefully perused the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer and we are satisfied that in whatever way we look at it, permission for utilising Government sources of water for filling up of the tank cannot be read in it. It was not the case of the complainant before the District Forum or even before us that the complainant had his own sources of water for filling up the fish tank. It was incumbent upon him to satisfy the Bank, his creditor, that he had adequate water resources for satisfying the requirements of the fish tank to raise fish. Therefore the only alternative for him was obviously to utilise the Government irrigation sources. He had not given any sources for the same nor permission from the authorities concerned to utilise such sources for raising fish by forming tanks in his land. On the facts of the present case, we are unable to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties in refusing to release the balance loan amount without any assurance of adequate water resources forthcoming from the appellant/complainant. We also notice that it was specifically mentioned in the version/counter dated 1.5.1996 filed on behalf of the 2nd opposite party as follows :
"Even as on today if the complainant comes forward and submits the above said letter from the Mandal Revenue Officer, the opposite parties have absolutely no objection for releasing the balance amount to the complainant."
In view of this stand of the opposite parties 1 and 2, one would expect the complainant to approach them indicating alternative water sources for filling up his fish tank or that he obtained permission from the authorities concerned for utilising the Government water available in Government water sources for the purpose of his fish tank.
In the result, we uphold the order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.