Ryots have a right to customary water supply without Government interference, and the Government's obligation is to make an equitable distribution of water in years of shortage. The Government cannot supply water to Madras without regard to the claims of ryots in the old ayacut.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal raises a question of great public importance. The Court is called upon to decide what are the powers of the Government with regard to the distribution of water in two reservoirs, or tanks as they are usually called in India from which the city of Madras receives its water-supply. One tank is known as the Cholavaram tank, and the other as the Red Hills tank. They lie close to one another, some fifteen miles from the city of Madras. Before 1870 when the Government undertook a scheme to increase the storage capacity of these tanks with the primary object of supplying water to Madras, the water in the tanks was used merely for the purpose of irrigating lands in the vicinity. Near to the tanks in the river Cortelliar, but before the scheme was carried out there was no connection between the river and the tanks and the level of the water in them depended on the rain which fell in the catchment area. The evidence, however, discloses that the water in the Red Hills tank was sufficient in a normal year for the cultivation of one crop at least in an ayacut of over 5,000 acres. The scheme provided for the damming of the Cortelliar river, the diversion of water impounded by this dam into a channel in the Cholavaram tank and the construction of another channel connecting the Cholavaram tank with the Red Hills tank. The scheme was a costly one, but as it contemplated the storage of sufficient water to bring under cultivation a further area, as well as supplying the old ayacut and Madras, the Government anticipated meeting the cost out of the increase in land revenue which would follow from an extension of the irrigated area. The scheme was completed in 1872 and an additional area was brought under cultivation as the result of the increased water-supply. The Government has, however, always regarded the scheme as being in the first instance few the benefit of Madras,, and the question which falls for decision is whether the Government is entitled to supply Madras with water without regard to the rights of the cultivators in the old ayacut as they existed in 1870.

2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed on the Original Side of this Court by the appellant against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The appellant is the owner of some 43-44 acres of lands in the old ayacut. The fact that the lands fell within the old ayacut was denied, but it was held that they did and this finding has not been challenged before us. The appellant asserted that he was entitled to have sufficient water each year for the cultivation of two crops on his lands and this without regard to the needs of Madras. He complained that in faslis 1336 and 1337 (1926-27 and 1927-28) the crops on his lands were damaged as the result of the Government withholding from him the water to which he was entitled. He assessed the total damage at Rs. 5,523-7-6 and asked for a decree for this amount. He also asked for a declaration of his rights. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Secretary of State it was denied that the appellant had the right to be supplied with any definite quantity of water or to claim damages on the ground that water had been withheld from him. It was said that the Government had an absolute right to regulate the distribution of water or to withhold it both with regard to. the lands in the old ayacut and those brought under cultivation subsequent to the carrying out of the scheme. It was also said that as the primary object of the scheme was to provide a water-supply for Madras any rights which the appellant had before the scheme came into operation had been put an end to by the project, the ryots having taken the risk of the water-supply being restricted in return for the benefit to be derived from the scheme. The respondent put the appellant to strict proof that certain of his lands were "wet" lands pertaining to the old ayacut and denied that he was in any event entitled to wate