KOPALLI KRISHNA ROW GARU Vs. COLLECTOR OF KISTNA ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which these second appeals arise were brought to recover penal water rate alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiffs for fasli 1317 in respect of certain Zemindari wet lands belonging to them. The District Munsif gave the plaintiffs a decree in three of the suits and dismissed the fourth. The District Judge on appeal dismissed the suits holding that the plaintiffs were liable to pay the penal water rate collected from them.

(2.) The lands admittedly were irrigated by means of Government water, and their liability to pay water rate under Section 1 of Act VII of 1865 is not disputed. The levy of penal water rate is regulated by rules framed under the said section and published at page 2 of the appendices to the standing orders of the Board of Revenue Rule 5 runs. Double water rate will also be charged if water is taken from a sluice or channel or other source of supply other than that which is provided or approved by the responsible officers of the Public Works Department.

(3.) In the present case it is found that the authorised source of irrigation is a single pipe (or a row of pipes) leading from the "Manager Kodu" channel and that the irrigation of the suit lands was actually effected by means of the water of the said channel passing through two pipes (or rows of pipes) the second having been inserted without the authority or approval of the Public Works Department. The effect of the insertion of the second pipe would be to double the supply of water available. It may be noted here that according to the plaints, the suit lands were irrigated and apparently entitled to be irrigated, not from the "Manager Kodu " channel, but from another source--altogether-- the Nibhanapudi channel. These allegations have been found to be false. It has however to be determined whether on the facts found the levy of the penal rate was legal.