ORDER B.S. Shukla The decision in this case hinges on the question whether a given right of irrigation from a tank is restricted to the particular crop shown in Col. 8, Bab 10 of the wajib-ul-arz or is the right unrestricted so far as crops are concerned. Appellant has a recorded right to irrigate K. No. 56 from the village tank bearing K. No. 76. He has been fined Rs. 40 by the two Courts below, for breach of the conditions of the wajib-ul-arz, on the ground that in addition to irrigating paddy crops he was found irrigating vegetable garden standing on the same K. No. 56. In Col. No. 8 of Bab 10, meant for showing crops irrigated from the tank, only 'paddy' has been shown. The contention of the Appellant is that once the right of irrigation is conceded, it is immaterial what crop is actually sown or irrigated. In his view, no breach is committed if, as an alternative, or in addition to paddy crop, some other crop is irrigated by him. In my opinion this contention is untenable. The following extract from para. 18, Settlement Instructions will throw some light on the significance of the various columns of Bab 10: ...The Administration Paper should simultaneously show, against each tank, the person or persons responsible for, to up-keep, and whether the right to irrigation exercised by tenants refers to one particular crop; for example, it will often be found that tenants have a right to water for rice, the water rate being included in their rent, but if they grow sugarcane or garden crops, they pay an additional water-rate. In the light of above, the settlement instructions prescribe the Form in which the list of irrigable tanks is to be prepared. This list is contained in Bab 10 and Col. 8 thereof corresponds to Col. 5 of the form given in the settlement instructions. Col. 5 (now Col. 8) is to show "crop irrigated without payment of dues". Thus it is clear that the object of showing crop, in Col. 8 is to indicate the crop to which the right of irrigation from a particular tank is restricted. To water other crops, the right will have to be acquired or extra water-supply paid for. It would, therefore, be incorrect to say that the right of irrigation has no relevancy to the crops irrigated. 8 is to indicate the crop to which the right of irrigation from a particular tank is restricted. To water other crops, the right will have to be acquired or extra water-supply paid for. It would, therefore, be incorrect to say that the right of irrigation has no relevancy to the crops irrigated. Right of irrigation is a very important matter specially in the irrigated rice areas and the wajib-ul-arz conditions have strictly to be adhered to. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant raised - a last-minute plea that the Appellant was holding the tank in malik-makbuza rights and as such he had unrestricted right to irrigate his own fields. This plea was not taken below nor in the memo, of the present appeal. Time was, however, allowed to produce certified copy of Patta or order granting such a right but nothing came forth except a copy of the order-sheet dated 15-12-51 from the Compensation Officer's Revenue Case No. 303/I-A-4/50-51. There is nothing in this order-sheet to show that Tank K. No. 76 was, in fact, settled in malik-makbuza rights with the Appellant, quite apart from the fact that in preparing Form III under Section 13(I) of the M.P. A.P. R. Act, the Compensation Officer was only required to decide what irrigable tanks would vest in the State. Settlement of tanks under Section 5 ibid was no part of Compensation Officer's duty, which was entrusted to the Nistar Officers by the State Government. This document is, therefore, of no, avail to the Appellant. In result, I hold that the view taken by the lower Court is correct. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.