CLAUSE 129.—(Complaints as to interference with water supplies.) (Hansard, 28 March 1935)

§ Mr. RAIKES

I beg to move, in page 78, line 26, after "supply," to insert "or in any canal."

The Amendment is put down for elucidation. The object of this Clause is to prevent any interference with water supplies. As the Clause is drafted it appears doubtful whether it covers water in canals. It is obvious that an irrigation canal may carry water over a considerable part of federated territory, and if one unit in the Federation shuts off the water supply it may cause considerable trouble and suffering to those other parts through which the canal water otherwise would pass. One can realise the serious dangers in India of a shortage of water, particularly in the North West and the hot climates, where you are likely to have plague and drought, and many other troubles, unless the canal supplies can run right through. I feel hopeful that on this occasion the Government will look with an indulgent eye on an Amendment which has no ulterior object except to make sure that water in a canal is allowed to pass.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am sure that my hon. Friend never has any ulterior motive, and on this occasion he is more than usually innocent. The Clause deals with a fascinating subject, that is, what rights people have in water, running water in particular, as well as water in natural reservoirs. There are 2152 two kinds of water. There is the water in the natural streams and reservoirs, and there is the water in the canals, with which the hon. Member wants to deal. As far as the waters in the natural streams and reservoirs are concerned there is no statute or common law in India which regulates the rights of people to the use of the water. In this country there is a great body of common law, which is added to by judicial decisions, which regulates the rights of people through whose land the water flows, the riparian owners, and which also deals with the rights of people who use the stream and who have a right to expect it to continue in its natural flow, so that their cattle may continue to drink from it. In India there is no such statute or common law and, therefore, these natural sources of water supplies have been dealt with in a general way and on certain broad lines. That is to say, an area which has a very small rainfall, or no rainfall at all, gets a prior right to the water as compared with those which have a plentiful rainfall. A non-cultivated area will not be preferred to a cultivated area, which is in possession of an irrigation supply or a natural supply of water.

These are the general principles which regulate the use of water in these natural conditions, but they are not what lawyers call "justiciable rights" which can be taken to a court of law. When you come to canals it is a different matter. A canal is built by powers conferred by local legislation, or constructed in accordance with agreements which are often based upon a proportion of the cost which falls on the different parties entitled to the use of the water. Those are justiciable rights, and can be taken to a court of law. This Clause and the following Clause are intended to provide a method of settling rights in natural sources, rights which cannot be taken to a court of law because there are no legal principles by which the courts can regulate any disputes which may arise. For that reason it is not proposed to put canals into the Clause because they can be disposed of by ordinary tribunals and do not require to be referred to the special tribunals which are set up.