1. The main point raised in these appeals is the rate to be charged when dry and garden lands are irrigated with tank water with the landlord's permission. The appellants claimed 212 tooms per quarter cawnie. Presumably they mean 21/2 tooms of paddy but this is quite clear from the patta itself. The Deputy Collector found that Rs. 6 per acre was a reasonable rate and fixed that amount. His finding is accepted by the District Judge, and it is now contended that this finding cannot be supported. Neither the first nor the Lower Appellate Court has given definite reasons for considering this reasonable, but the Deputy Collector who is a Revenue Officer must have been aware of the fact that the highest wet rate levied by Government in the Nellore District is Rs. 6 per acre, and it was open to him to act on that knowledge and come to the conclusion that he did. The tenants made an offer at this rate which he accepted. The Judge has merely agreed with him, but I do not see any reason for setting aside the finding. It is, however, argued that under the law the wet rate is the proper rate to fix for such lands, and reliance is placed on a ruling in Venkatachalam Chetty v. Aiyamperumal Thevan ILR (1919) M 702, to which I was a party. In that case it was held that the landlord was entitled to a reasonable compensation for the use of his water, a principle which has been acted upon consistently by this Court. In the circumstances of that particular case, it was held that the charge of sarasari, which is the wet rate, was not unreasonable in view of the fact that there had been an old custom in that Zamindari to levy that rate ; but this is not an authority for saying that the reasonable amount of compensation must be the same in every village or District, i.e., wet rate. In the present case both the Courts have found what is the reasonable amount of compensation, and what was the proper method of fixing the rate chargeable. I see no reason to interfere with that finding.
2. The second ground of appeal relates to the charge on garden lands liable to submersion. This ground was not taken in the appeal memorandum, and although additional grounds have been filed, no valuation of this claim has been given and no stamp duty paid. So I must decline to discuss it.
3. The third point is that the provision for payment to village servants of a certain cess should be inserted in the patta. The payment is not to be made to the landlord but to the village servants, and it is a question between them and the pattadar. The Lower Courts were, therefore, right in ordering that this clause should be omitted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Costs will only be payable in S.A. Nos. 1329 to 1332 and 1334, and vakil's fee for all these appeals together is fixed at Rs. 100.