JUDGMENT
D. Raju, J.
1. The State represented by the District Collector of Madurai is the appellant in the above appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The respondents herein have filed O.S. No. 327 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul for themselves as pattadars owning double crop wet lands in the villages of Batlagundu and Kanavoipatty and as also representatives of all double crop wet ayacutdhars of the said two villages. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, the appellant herein, from diverting the water of Manjalar either impounding the same at the Manjalar Dam site or otherwise, without arranging for adequate supply of water for the second crop every year for all the registered double crop wet lands in the said villages or in the alternative for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to supply water for two crops on the aforesaid lands. The case of the plaintiffs is that Batlagundu and Kanavoipatti are two adjacent villages in Nilakottai Taluk, that there are roughly 165 acres of double crop wet lands in the village of Batlagundu and about 160 acres of such lands in Kanavoipatti which are registered as double crop wet lands in the revenue registers and accounts, that the first plaintiff is a pattadar owning about five acres of double crop wet lands in Batlagundu village and the second plaintiff owns about three acres of double crop wet lands in Kanavoipatti, that the entire lands registered as double crop wet lands in both the villages were being irrigated under a system taking its source of supply of water from a river known as Manjalar, a natural steam taking its source in the Kodaikanal hills, and that the water used to be taken direct to the fields by means of certain irrigation channels or voikkals from the stream or the water would first be taken to certain tanks for storages and then led to the lands by means of irrigation or field channels. Such a system was said to have been in vogue from time immemorial. The details of several channels and tanks through which water was taken are also furnished and it was claimed that the lands in question were recognised as double crop wet lands and not only registered as such, but subjected to increased assessment of double crop wet assessment from fasli 1327 when resurvey was said to have been introduced in both the villages. On the above averments, it was claimed that the ayacutdars have acquired an indefeasible right to raise two crops in each fasli on the lands in question and are entitled to get adequate water supply for two crops. Manjalar is said to be a perennial hill stream and that there was sufficient supply of water for two crops and the Government had no right whatsoever to deny the supply of water for two crops for these lands or to divert the water for other use without supplying adequate quantity of water for raising two crops in the lands mentioned above.
2. The waters of Manjalar were said to be always more than sufficient for the supply of water to these land to raise two crops in all the registered wet lands in both the villages and the surplus water was also said to be going waste. In such circumstances, in or about 1963, the Government undertook the execution of a scheme known as “Manjalar Dam Scheme” to put up a dam across the Manjalar river and impound all the water to enable wet crops to be raised in a large area of dry lands in Devadanapatti and other villages. Such a diversion of the water allegedly to the detriment of the wet ayacutdars like the plaintiffs is said to be illegal and beyond the competence of even the government which was bound in law to provide adequate supply of water for the ‘mamool’ needs of the wet lands under the old ayacuts. The Government was said to have not only recognised the rights of the ayacutdars, but reported that the dam was intended to stabilise and supplement the regular ‘mamool’ supply of water to the wet lands and the scheme would be implemented in such a way as not to affect the ‘mamool’ rights of the wet ayacutdars under the Manjalar system. Rules were said to have been published by the Government for regulating the supply of water from Manjalar Reservoir to new and old ayacuts in 1966 as per which an estimate for the 1st crop season September II half to February I half) and the 2nd crop season (February II half to September I half) was also estimated and the flow in excess of such limits alone will be impounded in the reservoir for the benefit of the new ayacutdars in addition to the supplementation and stabilisation of supply to the Manjalar old ayacuts below the reservoir.
3. The plaintiffs also contended that there was a resettlement or revenue assessment during 1968 and 1969, that an irrigation cess was also imposed on the dry lands in Devadanapatti village which were benefited by the Manjalar reservoir, that the old ayacut was also benefited by the reservoir and the betterment assessment was levied on the old wet lands retrospectively from fasli 1376 and that the old ayacutdars whose ancient immemorial rights had been specifically recognised were said to be entitled to regular supply of water for the second crops in the case of lands registered as double crop wet lands. The Government, it was claimed, though could regulate the supply of water, had no right to refuse the ‘mamool’ supply of water by impounding the water without sufficient supply for the second wet crop by diverting the water to the detriment of the ayacutdars-plaintiffs. In June, 1969, there appears to have been certain problems in the supply of water followed by an inspection by the District Collector and other officials resulting in the passing of orders regulating the supply of water to different villages under a turn system and the plaintiffs and other ayacutdars were said to be receiving the regulated supply or water for the second crop. In April, 1971, when the ryots were said to have raised seedlings for the second crop, the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) was said to have adopted an hostile attitude and declined to release the water for the second crop through there was sufficient water in the reservoir and the rule that the half the natural flow alone should be impounded was not observed. The Executive Engineer also was said to have, by his letter dated 26.4.1971, rejected the request of the old ayacutdars for the supply of water to their lands on the ground that Manjalar Dam Scheme did not contemplate supply of water for second crop in the wet lands of old ayacuts. Since the order of the Executive Engineer amounted to denial of lawful rights of the pattdars, they were said to have moved his Court by means of writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 1676 and 1677 of 1971 for redress, and obtained also an interim direction for release of water. In the said writ petitions, it appears that they were referred to suit to vindicate their rights resulting in the filing of the above suit for the relief noticed supra.
4. The defendant State filed a written statement wherein it has admitted about the extent of double crop wet lands in the villages in question and the irrigation of those lands by Manjalar river. It was also contended that when the scheme was taken up for investigation and implementation, the existence of double crop lands in the old ayacut was not taken, that there was no objection from any one to the construction of the reservoir and except the entitlement to accustomed supply of water, the plaintiffs have no right to question the prerogative right of the state to regulate and in the process even divert the water flowing in natural stream to different purposes and that in the absence of any positive proof of damage or serious loss, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit. The suit was also said to be premature in that the compromise proposal sent to the Board of Revenue for approval was said to be pending.
5. The plaintiffs also filed a reply statement.
6. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be tried and the plaintiffs alone have marked certain documents. There was no oral evidence on either side. The learned trial Judge held by judgment and decree dated 8.2.1978 that the ayacutdars of Batlagundu and Kanavoipatti villages are entitled to supply of water for raising two crops in the wet lands and that the suit could not be said to be premature and consequently decree the suit in the following terms:
In the result, there will be decree restraining the defendant from diverting the waters of the Manjalar river impounded at the Manjalar Dam site without arranging for adequate supply of water for the second crop to all the registered double crop wet lands in the village of Batlagundu and Kanavoipatti every year by way of permanent injunction.
7. Aggrieved, the appellant – State filed A.S. No. 945 of 1980 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court also concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge and by a judgment dated 16.10.1987 the appeal came to be rejected. Hence, the above appeal.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial judge as also the learned first Appellate Judge ought to have given due weight to the prerogative right of the Government to collect, store and regulate the supply of water flowing in natural streams and rivers and, the right of ryot or pattadar to get accustomed supply for cultivation of his lands cannot be so construed as to undermine the prerogative right of the State of equitably distribute the water in public interest. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the decree granted if to be implemented would defeat the very purpose of the Manjalar scheme and the construction of the Dam and that the storage capacity of the Dam itself being 487 M.cft., the same cannot meet the total requirements of 1,500 M.Cft. needed for supply of water to two crops in an year. Reliance was also placed upon the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvements) Act, 1949 in support of the stand taken for the appellant – State. Per contra, Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs forcefully contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Judge as also the learned first Appellate Judge are quite in accordance with law and that in the teeth of the very stand taken for the Government and the admission made that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive their accustomed supply of water for raising two crops, the State has no right to interfere with or deny the entitlement of the ryots of the two villages in question. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the stand taken by the Executive Engineer is a clear infringement of the mamool rights of the ayacutdars in question. According to the respondents, having regard to the admission made about the entitlement of the ryots, the appeal itself is not maintainable.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing on either side. In Lachuma Goundan v. Pandiyappan (1950) 2 M.L.J. 658, Viswanantha Satri, J. held that the obligation of the Government is to supply water necessary and sufficient for the accustomed requirements of the ryotwari proprietor so long as such supply is not adversely affected by natural causes such as deficiency of rainfall or scarcity of water in the rivers from which the supply channels take off. It was also held therein that in other cases, the interference by the Government with the existing rights of irrigation from artificial channels constructed by Government is not an actionable wrong and the ryotwari proprietor is not entitled to insist that the entire volume of water which had been flowing through the artificial channel should, for all times, be allowed to run along the channel without diminution or diversion by the Government. We are therefore, of the view that despite the rights of the ryot to receive from the Government supply of water necessary for irrigation of his registered wet lands, as an incident to the Ryotwari tenure, the prerogative right of the Government to regulate the same in the larger interest of the society is equally beyond challenge.
10. In Maduranayakam Pillai v. Secretary of State for Indian in Council (1939) 1 M.L.J. 176 : 49 1 W. 151, while dealing with the claims of ryots for supply of their accustomed requirement for two crops, who felt aggrieved on account of the schemes implemented to supply water to the city of Madras from two reservoirs or tanks as they are called viz., Cholavaram Tank and Red Hills tank, a Division Bench of this Court in sustaining their right to one crop, has held that the needs of the city of Madras are of very great importance and there could be no complaint about the policy of the Government in giving the large city such a Madras, a preference in the supply of water. The learned judges also noticed the fact that the rights and obligations as between the State and the ryot in this country, so far as supplying water for irrigation purposes was concerned rested largely on unrecorded custom and practice. In Secretary of State v. P.S. Nageswara Iyer and Ors. 71 M.L.J. 268 : A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 923 : 44 L.W. 388 : 1936 M.W.N. 684, a Division Bench of this Court observed that it has generally been stated that the ryotwari holder is only entitled to claim that the supply of water required for the cultivation of his registered wet lands should not be materially diminished by any act of the Government and subject to this condition, the government in this country has claimed absolute right to change the source of irrigation or the method of irrigation by which the ryot has been supplied and to regulate the use of the waters of all public or natural steams in the best interests of the people. It was also held therein that the significance of the registry as single crop or double crop or as ‘computiland’ lies mainly in fixing the quantum of the liability of the ryot in the matter of land revenue and when the liability has been thus fixed he can only depend upon the possibility of securing a remission if the revenue authorities are satisfied that there has been a failure of crops on account of the failure of the water supply and that it may also follow that the lands registered as “double crop” lands are entitled to water for second crop in preference to lands registered as “single crop” under the same source, when the holder of the single crop lands proposes to raise a second crop on it. While making it clear that it is common knowledge that second crop is freely permitted to be raised subject, of course, to the ryot taking the risk of the failure of water supply and subject to the liability to any assessment for the second crop, it was also held that the power of the State to interfere with customary supply of water to ryotwari holders ought not to be determined with reference to the registry, but only with reference to the nature of the accustomed user.
11. A reference to Section 2 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, may also be usefully made to highlight the intention of the legislature and statutory recognition, in our view, of the prerogative right of the State to regulate the supply of water. Section 2, enacts that nothing in the Act shall be deemed to affect any law not expressly repealed or to derogate from any right of the Government to regulate the collection, retention and distribution of the water of the rivers and streams flowing in natural channels and of natural 1 lakes and ponds or of the water flowing, collected, retained or distributed in or by any channel or other work constructed at the public expense for irrigation. That apart, with the march and development of the concept of Law and Justice, the feudal principles or theory of “Laissez Faire” yielding place to “Socialistic” pattern of society and principles of social and distributive justice coming to hold the field with the advent of the Constitution of India, some of the anachronistic ideas of the past have undergone slow but steady reformation and change. Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India enjoins the State also to direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good and the words “material resources’ have been assigned wide meaning to include not only natural but physical resources. The governance of the country has tog be in conformity with the basic tenets and fundamental principles of Rule of Law with its essential attributes of equality of opportunity and equal protection of laws. Therefore, it would be difficult to countenance a plea or accept and approve a claim opposed to the basic tenets of the principles of equality. In the face of a public oriented scheme and the construction of a dam known as “Manjalar Scheme” by spending public funds, to collect, regulate and distribute water for an effective irrigation of agricultural lands the claim that the plaintiffs and villagers similarly placed would be entitled to water for raising two crops even if the single crop lands get water or not, cannot commend the credibility of acceptance with Courts of Justice. The Paramount and absolute rights of the State government, to regulate and distribute the supply of water for irrigation to one and all whose lands form part of the ayacut under an irrigational source cannot be whittled down or undermined by the Civil Courts granting any blanket order of injunction or stay or even any direction or declaration annulling a particular scheme or project devised in the larger and general interest and welfare of people and the society at large.
12. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the right of the plaintiffs for the supply of water for one crops is not in any manner interfered with or infringed. It would be unjust, inequitable and unreasonable to deny others even water for one crop to provide water to the plaintiffs for raising the second crop in their lands merely on account of the fact that they stood registered as “double crop” wet lands. When the irrigation source as such came into existence with public funds, though of natural river channel. In our view, the learned trial Judge as also the I learned first Appellate Judge were not alive to these vital and relevant aspects of the claim and its credibility. The relief of injunction as prayed for being an equitable relief ought not to have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the State, in view of the principles enshrined in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvements) Act, 1949, which would in our view govern the claim in question, notwithstanding the applicability or otherwise of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act itself, to the case on hand. The learned judge who sustained the claim of the plaintiffs, gave, in our view, undue weight to the registration of the lands as “double crop wet lands” ignoring the legal effects or consequences of such registration as enunicated by this Court and noticed supra. Granting of injunction as prayed for and as ultimately allowed by the Courts in this case would have the effect of overriding and to certain extent even nullifying the undoubted power of the State to equally and equitably distribute natural resources of the community keeping in view the larger interest of the society, as the State has got to do. The judgments and decrees of the learned trial judge and that of the learned First Appellate Judge are, therefore, set aside and the suit shall stand dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal shall stand allowed. No costs.