Back
1892 Supreme(Mad) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Ramachandra Aiyar
Versus
Narainasami, Minor By His
Decided On : 2 September, 1892
The Government has the right to distribute water from Government channels but cannot disturb existing arrangements to the prejudice of any tenant during the tenancy.
Headnote:
Government Channels - Water Distribution - Prejudice to Tenant
Fact of the Case:
The Subordinate Judge found that the disputed channel was newly dug, causing a diminution in water supply for the plaintiff's lands, resulting in actual damage. The Sub-Collector's order regulating water supply was deemed excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government has the right to distribute water from Government channels but cannot disturb existing arrangements to the prejudice of any tenant during the tenancy.
Issues: Excess of power by the Sub-Collector, Prejudice to tenant's water supply, Costs liability
Ratio Decidendi: The Government has the right to distribute water but cannot disturb existing arrangements to the prejudice of any tenant during the tenancy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, as the Sub-Collector's order was deemed excessive and the appellant failed to make the Collector a party in the Lower Appellate Court.
1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the channel in dispute was newly dug, that appellants statement that an old channel had existed is not proved, that the diversion of water from the Pathatharam channel caused a material diminution in the supply necessary for the cultivation of plaintiffs lands and that actual damage was sustained in consequence in Fasli 1295. Upon these facts it is clear that the order of the Sub-Collector was in excess of the powers possessed by him for the regulation of the supply of water for irrigation purposes among ryots holding under Government. As observed in Kristna Ayyan v. Vencatachella Mudali, 7 M. H. C. R, 60, the Government has an undoubted right to distribute the water of Government channels, but that power does not include the power to disturb existing arrangements to the prejudice of any tenant during the continuance of the tenancy. This is also the view taken by the Bombay High Court in The First Assistant Collector of Nusik v. Shamji Dasrath Patil, I. L. R., 7 B., 209.
2. As regards the direction that appellant should pay the costs of the 2nd defendant (the Collector) in the Court of First Instance, we cannot disturb the same as appellant did not make him a party in the Lower Appellate Court.
3. The appeal fails therefore and is dismissed with costs (two sets).
