Judgment The Province of Madras, represented by the District Collector, Tanjore, is the appellant in this second appeal, and the respondent is the District Board of Tanjore, by its president. The suit raises a dispute regarding water rate demanded by the Government. The management of certain inam villages belonging to a chatram is vested in the District Board. The chatram in question is Mohanambalpuram Chatram situated at Rajamatam. The villages were granted in inam to the chatram by a late Rajah of Tanjore. The grant of these inams was recognised at the time of the inam settlement, and the grant was confirmed. The channel known as Puttuvanachi Vari,is the source of supply of water for the irrigation of the inam villages, and the channel is admittedly situated within the limits of the inam villages. From time immemorial, the water from the channel was drawn for the purpose of irrigation of lands in the villages, without any liability to pay water cess to the Government. This was the state of affairs both before and after the inam settlement. It would appear that in one of the villages there is also a tank to which the water is taken from Puttuvanachi Vari. After the construction of the Cauveri-Mettur project the flow of water in these channels became more certain and perhaps larger in volume. On this ground the Government levied irrigation cess from the plaintiff, the District Board of Tanjore, and therefore the plaintiff was obliged to institute the present suit for declaration that the lands were entitled to free irrigation rights and also for a refund of the water cess collected from the plaintiff. The suit was successful in both the courts. Hence this second appeal. The only question for consideration is, whether the fact that more water is made to flow into the Puttuvanachi Vari channel by the Government in consequence of the construction of the Cauveri-Mettur project, is the Government justified in the levy of water cess. It is now well established law that the extent of the free irrigation right of a zamin-dar or that of an inamdar in respect of lands in his estate is governed by the decision of the Uralam Case Prasadha Rao v. Secretary of State for Indial. It is now well established law that the extent of the free irrigation right of a zamin-dar or that of an inamdar in respect of lands in his estate is governed by the decision of the Uralam Case Prasadha Rao v. Secretary of State for Indial. The principle of this decision is that the permanent settlement with a zamindar constitutes an engagement within the meaning of the proviso to section 1 of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act. On the same analogy, it is established now that the inam settlement is also an engagement within the said proviso. The extent of the rights of free irrigation has to be measured not with reference to the area of the land irrigated at the time of the settlement, but by a reference to the physical conditions of the channel and its size. If, at the time of the engagement, the inamdar or the zamindar was drawing water to his lands from a channel of particular dimensions, the dimensions of that channel provide the measure of the right of free irrigation. This has been decided by the Privy Council in the Swamigal’s case, Secretary of State for India v. Vidhya Varada Thirtha Swamigal2. In some cases it may be that the zamindar or the inamdar not only took the water through the channel, but also stored it in an irrigation tank to facilitate continuous supply of water to his lands. The increase in the dimensions, of the tank by raising, for example, the F.T.L, would not make him liable to pay water cess on the ground that he had exceeded his right by increasing the storage capacity of the tank, so long as he does not alter the dimensions of the channel which is situate in his inam village; see Yahya Ally Saheb v. Secretary of State3. My attention was drawn by the learned Government Pleader to an observation of Mr. My attention was drawn by the learned Government Pleader to an observation of Mr. Justice Somayya in Sri Ekambaraswami Temple of Sirukarumbur v. The Provincial Government of Madras4, where the learned Judge at page 318 observed: “the only ground which would justify the Government in levying water cess is that the channel Ammanam Kolakkal was interfered with at its entry into the village or above, and that a larger quantity of water is taken from the channel than what was hitherto flowing into the village.” If one considers the facts of the case, the importance of that observation of the learned Judge would be evident. In the inam village there was a tank which irrigates the lands of the village. The water to this tank was supplied by a Government channel known as Ammanam Kolakkal, which entered the village from the North, and after supplying water to the tank, passed on to the village lower down. The Government attempted to justify the levy of water cess on the ground that the inamdars raised the level of the surplus water of the tank and therefore stored more water in the tank than they were entitled to. The learned Judge pointed out, after referring to the decision in Yahya Ally Saheb v. Secretary of State3, and the Swamigal’s case2, that the tank and the channel situate within the limits of the village passed to the inamdars under the grant, and that the inamdars were: entitled to irrigate more lands by the water of that tank, and were entitled even to raise a second crop on what was a single crop land. In the context, the observations of the learned Judge means, in my opinion, that so long as the dimensions of the channel were not increased and were not interfered with either above or in the village, it would, not be exceeding the right recognised under law, and under the engagement the Government would not be justified in levying water cess. It is not certainly authority for the position that if more water was brought into a channel whose dimensions remained unaltered, the Government are entitled to levy water cess on the ground that the free irrigation right recognised by an engagement at the time of the inam settlement was exceeded. It is not certainly authority for the position that if more water was brought into a channel whose dimensions remained unaltered, the Government are entitled to levy water cess on the ground that the free irrigation right recognised by an engagement at the time of the inam settlement was exceeded. The expression “more water” used in some of the decisions no doubt on first impression, appear to be ambiguous; but in the context of the decisions it only means more water in the sense that the measure of the rights recognised under the law was exceeded, and that therefore the water taken over and above the right was more water. From such expression in some of the judgments, and divorcing them from the context, it cannot be inferred that merely because the Government have constructed the Cauveri-Mettur project, as a consequence of which more water flowed into the channel, the Government was justified in the levy of water cess in the present case. In my opinion, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is correct, and the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. (No leave.) V.P.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.