SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1943 Supreme(Mad) 262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Somayya, J.
Krishnaswami Chettiar and Ors.
Versus
Pappi Naicker and Ors.
Decided On : 11.10.1943

The duty of the Government to regulate water supply to wet fields under a particular tank and the limitations of the court in interfering with such regulation.

Headnote:

irrigation rights - water regulation - Rameshwar Pershad Narain Singh v. Koonj Behar Pattik (1979) 4 Cal. 633, Rayappan v. Virabhadra(84) 7 Mad. 530 - The judgment discusses the rights of landowners to water flowing through artificial water courses, the acquisition of rights in artificial water courses, and the distinction between surface water and water flowing through defined channels. It also emphasizes the duty of the Government to regulate water supply to wet fields under a particular tank and the limitations of the court in interfering with such regulation.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming the right to take water from a tank for irrigation of their wet fields. The defendants, owners of land to the west of the surplus channel, disputed the plaintiffs' right to insist on the water flow remaining unchanged.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants were entitled to irrigate their entire land before letting the water flow into the surplus channel, subject to the Government's right to regulate water supply.

Issues: Rights of landowners to water from a tank, regulation of water supply, distinction between surface water and water flowing through defined channels, and the duty of the Government to regulate water supply to wet fields.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants had the right to irrigate their entire land before letting the water flow into the surplus channel, emphasizing the duty of the Government to regulate water supply to wet fields under a particular tank.

Final Decision: The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed, and the defendants were entitled to irrigate their entire land before letting the water flow into the surplus channel, subject to the Government's right to regulate water supply.

JUDGMENT

Somayya, J.

1. Defendants 2 and 11 to 13 are the appellants in this appeal and there are various questions raised as to the rights of several ayacutdars holding wet lands under a tank-as to how the rights to take the water to the several fields are to be regulated. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that they had the right of taking the water of the tank which is the source of irrigation to certain wet fields which bear S. Nos. 2757, 2759, 2760 and 1147. A plan was prepared by a Commissioner appointed by the Court which was marked as Ex. C and this plan will be referred to in my judgment. A reference to Ex. C shows that the fields owned by the plaintiffs are all to the east of a channel shown as the surplus channel. The appellants are the owners of Sections No. 2765 which is situate to the west of this surplus channel. There are two tanks known as Karisalkulam tank or Pudu tank and Sengulam tank or Lakshminarayanapuram yeri. As regards the lands which are situate to the west of the surplus channel, the slope of the land is from south to north and from west to east. There is a channel shown with the letters L-M-P-O-N, N being the point of the junction of the channel with the surplus channel already mentioned. Plaintiffs claim is that all the water which came on to the southern portion of 2765 was after irrigating that portion finding its way into the surplus channel and that sometime before 1917 the channel L-M-P-O which was till then existing was extended to the point N so that O-N also came into existence and that the water on the southern portion of 2765 used to find its way into O-N and discharge itself into the surplus channel. The plaintiffs claim that with the water flowing into the surplus channel, they were irrigating the fields which are mentioned already. The channel which took off the surplus water of the tank is the irrigation channel for the plaintiffs fields. The right of the plaintiffs to take such water as is flowing into the surplus channel is not denied. The point of dispute between the parties is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to insist upon the defendants keeping O-N in the state in which it was for sometime before the disputes arose or whether the appellants through whose lands L-M-P-O-N passes are entitled to make certain alterations which they did in or about the year 1987 with the main object of leading the water which came on to the southern portion to the northern portion as well. The appellants say that the whole of the field 2765 is also registered as wet ayacut under the very same tanks Karisalkulam and Sengulam and that they are entitled to irrigate the whole of the field before letting off the water into the surplus channel. It is primarily the duty of the Government which levies wet rate from both the plaintiffs and from the defendants lands to regulate the water supply so as to ensure an adequate supply to both the lands. It is unfortunate that in this case in spite of an attempt made by plaintiff 1 and others the revenue authorities remained indifferent and that attitude has led to this litigation.

2. Water flowing through the tank sluices is ordinarily intended to irrigate the lands classified as wet under a tank. There is no separate supply channel taking off from the sluices leading water to the plaintiffs lands. The surplus channel is mainly designed to take off the surplus from the two tanks. Normally, it is only when there are heavy rains that the tanks will surplus and surplus water as such will get into this channel only then. It is obvious that if that water is all that the plaintiffs are entitled to take, their lands may not get an adequate supply of water. Plaintiffs say that the mamool or the practice obtaining in this village is what is known as field to field irrigation. Under this system each wet field is not provided with a separate irrigation channel. The tank water is led through a big channel taking off from a sluice and there are smaller channels lea


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top