Riparian landowners, such as the plaintiff in this case, are entitled to draw water from the stream without being liable to pay water cess under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act.

( 1 ) THIS second Appeal is directed against the decision of the learnel Sibordinate Judge, Amalapuram in A. S. No 4/53 on his file. It aris s out of a suit instituted for recovery of Rs. 69. 40 being the amount of water rate with interest which was illegally collected from the plaintiff by the defendant-Government. The plaintiff s case is that he is the owner of Tnam coconut garte in survey Nos. 4/1 12/1 and 12 2 in Gannepalli village, masuring A. 2. 42 Ac. 1. 10 ind Ac. 1. 85 cents respectively abutting the stream called Chandra Bhaga, which would have fresh water in the flood season an I subsequently till February. As a riparian owner, he was entitled to draw water from it free of charge. But the Revenue inspector, through the village officer, collected from him Rs 40/- on 24-8-58 and Rs. 28-74 p on 4-10-58. Since the collections are illegal, he laid the suit for the recovery of the same with inter- rest at 5 percent per annum.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the suit on several grounds. The learned District Munsif framed appropriate issues and found that the plaintiff was a riparian owner entitled to draw water from the stream but that he could not recover the sum of Rs. 40/- paid on 24-8-58 as it was beyond three years prior to suit. Accordingly he granted a decree only for Rs. 28. 74 p paid on 4-10-58 with interest. Aggrieved by this decision the Government carried the matter in Appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, which was dismissed. Against that judgment and decree the present second appeal is filed.

( 3 ) THE two points urged on behalf of the Government are, firstly that even as a ripari an owner the plaintiff is not entitled to exemption from payment of water cess. Secondly that the period of limitation for recovery of the suit amount is six months but not three years, and hence there could no; be a decree even in respect of rs. 29,74p.

( 4 ) I am unable to accept either of these contentions. A perusal of Section 1 of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act (Act 7 of 1865) and the decision in 57 M. L, J, 648 (THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR india IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF godavari V. DAMISETTI SURAYYA AND ANOTHER) make it abundantly clear that the said Act has no application to riparian land owners, whether they are ryotwari patta holders or inam holders. From which it would follow that the plaintiff as an inamdar is a riparian owner, is entitled to draw water from the stream and is not liable to pay water cess under the Act.

( 5 ) THE second contention is equally futile. Section 59 of the land Revenue Recovey Act prescribes a shorter period of limitation viz. , six months only in respect of suits instituted for causes of action arising from proceedings taken under the Actt The evidence on record does not at alt establish that the two sums paid by the plaintiff were recovered pursuant to any proceedings under the Act. They are payments made by the plaintiff to the officers of the Government under the mistaken impression that they were due while they were not. To such cases the ordinary period of limitation of three years under article 96 of the Limitaion Act applies. That is the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge and I see absolutely no reason to differ from him.

( 6 ) IN the result, both the contentions fail and the appeal is dismissed with costs No leave.