RIGHT HON BLE THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT Vs. VKRAMANUJACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A. No. 1352 of 1921:- Appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 396 of 1919 on the file of the District Court of Chingleput (O.S. No. 468 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee).

(2.) The plaintiff is a ryot holding certain lands which at the last Revenue Settlement in Chingleput District were assessed as dry. Since then, the assessment has been enhanced under orders of the Board of Revenue and the plaintiff has brought this suit against the Secretary of State for India for a declaration that such enhancement is illegal, for the recovery of the amount so levied, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from levying such enhanced rates in future. The original Court and first Court of Appeal have decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff and the defendant brings this Second Appeal.

(3.) The lands in question are of the sort described as " Achukattu.? They are surrounded by high bunds which in the wet season retain sufficient water for raising a paddy crop. At the settlement in 1909, the bulk of these lands was classified as " Manavari " or " rain fed " and charged rather more than ordinary dry, and less than ordinary wet. But certain numbers lying within the catchment area of tanks were held to be objectionable as interfering with the supply of water, and they were still classed as ordinary dry. Had they too been transferred to " Manavari, " Government would practically have conceded the claim of these lands to enjoy additional water facilities, when that claim was held to be objectionable. The Government Order No. 2240 (Revenue), dated the 14 August, 1909 (page 36 of the printed documents) lays down that those which lie so close to the foreshore of a Government tank as materially to interfere with its supply should be entered in a special list and left to be dealt with by the Collector in accordance with this "existing district practice as embodied in G. O. No. 573 (Revenue), dated 24 June, 1905. In this G. O. (page 17 of the printed documents) the procedure enjoined is that water-rate should be charged if the Achukattu intercepts water which would otherwise flow into a Government irrigation work. Accordingly in the settlement notification, dated 1 June, 1910, Ex. A (at page 45 of the printed documents) it is declared that Achukattus which materially interfere with the supply of a Government irrigation work will be retained as ordinary dry, and Avill be dealt with by the Collector in accordance with the practice obtaining in the District.