Civil Courts cannot undermine the rights of Government.

D. Raju, J.

The State represented by the District Collector of Madurai is the appellant in the above appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The respondents herein have filed O.S. No.327 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul for themselves as pattadars owning double crop wet lands in the villages of Batlagundu and Kanavoipatty and as also representatives of all double crop wet ayacutdhars of the said two villages. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, the appellant herein, from diverting the water of Manjalar either impounding the same at the Manjalar Dam site or otherwise, without arranging for adequate supply of water for the second crop every year for all the registered double crop wet lands in the said villages or in the alternative for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to supply water for two crops on the aforesaid lands. The case of the plaintiffs is that Batlagundu and Kanavoipatti are two adjacent villages in Nilakottai Taluk, that there are roughly 165 acres of double crop wet lands in the village of Batlagundu and about 160 acres of such lands in Kanavoipatti which are registered as double crop wet lands in the revenue registers and accounts, that the first plaintiff is a pattadar owning about five acres of double crop wet lands in Batlagundu village and the second plaintiff owns about three acres of double crop wet lands in Kanavoipatti, that the entire lands registered as double crop wet lands in both the villages were being irrigated under a system taking its source of supply of water from a river known as Manjalar, a natural steam taking its source in the Kodaikanal hills, and that the water used to be taken direct to the fields by means of certain irrigation channels or voikkals from the stream or the water would first be taken to certain tanks for storages and then led to the lands by means of irrigation or field channels. Such a system was said to have been in vogue from time immemorial. The details of several channels and tanks through which water was taken are also furnished and it was claimed that the lands in question were recognised as double crop wet lands and not only registered as such, but subjected to increased assessment of double crop wet assessment from fasli 1327 when resurvey was said to have been introduced in both the villages. On the above averments it was claimed that the ayacutdars have acquired an indefeasible right to raise two crops in each fasli on the lands in question and are entitled to get adequate water supply for two crops. Manjalar is said to be a perennial hill stream and that there was sufficient supply of water for two crops and the Government had no right whatsoever to deny the supply of water for two crops for these lands or to divert the water for other use without supplying adequate quantity of water for raising two crops in the lands mentioned above.

2. The waters of Manjalar were said to be always more than sufficient for the supply of water to these land to raise two crops in all the registered wet lands in both the villages and the surplus water was also said to be going waste. In such circumstances, in or about 1963, the Government undertook the execution of a scheme known as “Manjalar Dam Scheme” to put up a dam across the Manjalar river and impound all the water to enable wet crops to be raised in a large area of dry lands in Devadanapatti and other villages. Such a diversion of me water allegedly to the detriment of the wet ayacutdars like the plaintiffs is said to be illegal and beyond the competence of even the government which was bound in law to provide adequate supply of water for the ‘mamool needs of the wet lands under the old ayacuts. The Government was said to have not only recognised the rights of the ayacutdars, but reported that the dam was intended to stabilise and supplement the regular ‘mamool’ supply of water to the wet lands and the scheme would be implemented in su