1. The first point argued is there that is no valid appeal by the Government to the lower appellate Court. The vakalat was signed by the Personal Assistant to the Collector. G.O. No. 496 Home (Judicial), dated 2nd June 1919 authorizes the Personal Assistant Deputy Collector, Kistna, to sign and verify all pleadings in suit by or against the Secretary of State. Applying Order 27, Rule 2, the Personal Assistant becomes a recognized agent of the Secretary of State. By G.O. No. 195, dated 4th May 1905, the Collectors also are recognized agents. The appellant's vakil then states his objection thus:
Assuming that the Collector and the Personal Assistant to the Collector are both agents of Government, still the Personal Assistant is not agent to the Collector. The vakalat purports to be executed by the Collector but signed by the Personal Assistant. This is not permissible. The vakalat though it begins 'I the Collector of Kistna do hereby' contains the cause title of the appeal whereas in the appal it is. described as the Secretary of State represented by the Collector. If the vakalat ranThe Secretary of State represented by the Collector of Kistna etc.,
there will be no force in the objection. It is perhaps advisable to have the form of the vakalat altered in the manner I suggest. But there is no real force in the objection. This contention is disallowed.
2. On the second point, that on the merits, I think the Subordinate Judge is right. The appellant is a ryotwari holder. The water source in dispute belongs to Government. There is no express grant by the Government of the right to use the water in favour of the appellant. Though both the lower Courts find that the appellant has been enjoying for nearly 50 years, the water of the channel in dispute, no grant can be implied from such enjoyment, for the Settlement Registers show the plaintiff's land to be dry land and the suit channel does not appear as its registered source. Nor car the plaintiff acquire any right by prescription by 50 years' enjoyment. I there is water available, the revenue authorities may well recognise the plain tiff's land as a wet land, impose wet assessment on it and provide the suit channel or some other water source for it irrigation.
3. I agree with the Subordinate Judge in recommending the plaintiff to such further action as the Government may find it feasible. Plaintiff has made out hi right in this case. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.