ADUSUMILLI GOPALAKRISHNAYYA GARU Vs. PROVINCE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It will be convenient to set out at once the facts relevant to this appeal, and to begin with a statement taken from the appellant's case, the accuracy of which was admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent: "TheappellantisaZamindarowningcertainlandsinVuyyur.TheVuyyurlandsformpartoftheNuzvidZamindaris.In1802,atthep

(2.) A considerable part of the appellant's estate has long been under wet cultivation, the present suit being concerned with an area of something over 177 acres which is so cultivated. Before the year 1855 the necessary water came from a tank on the appellant's land, which was known as Vaddicheruvu. There is no evidence to show from what source this tank was supplied. It is certain, however, that the appellant's predecessors in title paid nothing to the Government, as a separate charge, for the water which they used. If that water came from a Government source, it was no doubt paid for in the sense that the jamma payable by the Zamindar must be taken to have included a payment for the right to use the water, which was a right appurtenant to the land.

(3.) In 1855 the Government introduced a new system of irrigation in the district which is still in operation. It was described as the Kistna River anicut scheme. Its effects may be assumed to have been generally beneficial, but it resulted in the drying up of the Vaddicberuvu. Whatever were the rights of the Zamindar down to that date, he then plainly suffered loss through the Government's action, and Government therefore agreed to supply water free of charge for the irrigation of such of his lands as were under wet cultivation at that date. These were in extent about 816 acres in all, and included the 177 acres which are the subject of the present dispute.