Madras High Court
U.S.Palanivel vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 October, 2021
WP No.31515 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20-10-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.31515 of 2016
U.S.Palanivel .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Irrigation (General),
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The Chief Engineer (Irrigation),
Pollachi Region,
Public Works Department,
Coimbatore.
4.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Lower Bhavani Basin Division,
Erode – 638 002.
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
5.The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization,
Public Works Department,
Bhavani Sagar Dam Division,
Bhavani Sagar,
Erode District.
6.The Superintendent Engineer,
Erode Circle,
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
No.216, Arumugam Street,
Thirunagar Colony,
Erode – 638 003.
7.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
8.The Chief Vigilance Officer,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
9.The Superintendent Engineer,
Erode Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Erode.
10.The Chief Engineer,
Erode Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Erode.
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
11.The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode.
12.The District Revenue Officer,
Erode District,
Erode.
13.Kalingarayan Vaikal Neerettu Pasana
Vivasayigal Sangam,
Erode District having its office at
Chinniyampalayam via Modakurichi,
Erode – 638 104 represented by its
Secretary B.Sakthivel.
14.Thadapalli Arakan Kottai Bhavani,
Nathi Pasana Vivasayeegal Sangam,
Represented by its President
Subi.Thalapathi, No.232, Kacheri Street,
Gobichettipalayam,
Erode District.
(R-13 and R-14 were impleaded as per order of
Court dated 07.09.2021 made in WMP Nos.
32148 of 2016 and 24076 of 2019 in WP
No.31515 of 2016) .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to follow all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms No.3339 dated
12.12.1962 and G.O.Ms.No.2259 dated 03.11.1967.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Shase for Mr.M.Guruprasad
3/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
For Respondents-1 to 6, 11&12 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate.
For Respondents-7 to 10 : No Appearance
For Respondent-13 : Mr.M.Sriram for
Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram.
For Respondent-14 : Mr.K.Sudhakar
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondents to follow all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms No.3339 dated
12.12.1962 and G.O.Ms.No.2259 dated 03.11.1967.
2. The above two Government Orders relate to regulation of
unauthorised pumpsets installed on the Banks of Rivers and Channels.
However, the said Government Orders were passed in the years 1962 and
1967 respectively and on account of various developments and changes in
agricultural activities, the Government has to formulate a policy for the
purpose of regulating the distribution of water for irrigation and other
purposes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
3. Water is life for every creature in this world. Without water,
there is no life. Thus, equal distribution of water is of paramount importance
and constitutional mandate. The benefit cannot be restricted to few
individuals alone. It has to be distributed by the Government in such a
manner keeping in mind the public interest and for all the citizen in equal
manner without depriving anybody from getting water for various purposes.
Thus the importance of utilisation of water must be sensitised and the policy
of the Government should ensure that no citizen is deprived of equal
distribution of water for various purposes.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain persons are
illegally tapping the river water for irrigation and other purposes without
proper permission or approval from the Competent Authorities. Such
illegality resulting in deprival of equal distribution of water amongst all the
agriculturists and other persons in that locality. Thus, the petitioner is
constrained to file the present writ petition for a direction to regulate the
distribution of water in accordance with Government Orders passed in the
years 1962 and 1967 respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that huge
developments occurred for the past about 40 years, both in agriculture,
industrial and other activities. The distribution of water must be regulated
by formulating a revised policy and by passing necessary orders. However,
such policy is to be formulated by the Government taking into consideration
the interest of the State as a whole and considering the interest and the
activities in various localities.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
made a submission that they are not opposing distribution of water to the
unregistered ayacuts. However, due to illegal tapping, the distribution of
water is being affected. The very relief sought for in the present writ
petition is to regulate the distribution of water and not to deprive anyone
from getting water for irrigation purposes.
7. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of
the Department, made a submission that actions are being taken regularly in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
respect of the pipelines illegally laid for extracting water from the river.
Such illegal pipelines were removed periodically and destroyed and
electricity service connections to the pipelines were also disconnected by
the Electricity Department. However, based on the legal opinion of the
Government Pleader, Erode District, the electricity service connections were
restored. Thus, the contention of the petitioner to some extent is true that
there were many such illegal tapping of water in that locality and the
averments in this regard by the petitioner is also substantiated. However, the
consistent action in this regard are warranted on the part of the Department
Officials.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the thirteenth
respondent (R-13) made a submission that R-13 are also an agriculturists
and they are unregistered. The R-13 is periodically making representations
to regulate their registration relating to ayacuts for the purpose of equal
distribution of water to those agriculturists also.
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that population ratio
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
is consistently increasing in our Great Nation. Equally, the extension of
agricultural lands are also expanded for irrigation purposes. Mere non
registration of ayacuts would not deprive any person from getting water,
which is a National property. Registration or non-registration is for
regulation of distribution of water and not for depriving any person from
getting water for irrigation and other purposes. Therefore, the Authorities
Competent are bound to review the registration of ayacuts and in the event
of expansion of irrigation lands, all necessary actions are to be initiated for
the purpose of regulating unregistered ayacuts and for the purpose of equal
distribution of water in a genuine manner for the development of
agricultural activities in our Great Nation.
10. By expanding the agricultural lands, the country is
benefited. Thus, mere non-registration cannot be a ground to deny water to
any person. However, even as per the Minutes of the Meeting of the
Superintending Engineer, it is categorically stated that the water will be
distributed to the registered ayacuts and thereafter, it will be distributed to
unregistered ayacuts. Such a decision cannot be held as unreasonable. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
decision is practical and pragmatic.
11. The Superintending Engineer considered various factors in
the meeting and recorded the Minutes by stating that the distribution of
water will be considered to registered ayacuts at first and thereafter, to the
unregistered ayacuts. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity as such in
respect of the resolution passed by the the Superintending Engineer.
12. Extraction of water for commercial usage is an offence
under the Indian Penal Code. The issue in this regard was elaborately
considered by this Court in the case of Shanthi Aqua Farms vs. Secretary
to Government of Tamil Nadu [(2018) 4 MLJ (Crl) 658] and the relevant
paragraphs 83 to 107 are extracted as under:-
"83. In this context, this Court has to now
consider, whether Extraction of Ground Water
can be brought under the offences described in
any one of the provisions in the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). Curiously, this Court had gone into those
aspects and Mr.C.Emalias, learned Public
Prosecutor, assisted the Court in this regard by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
producing some of the judgments. When this
Court, at the first instance, raised a question with
the learned Advocate General that Extraction of
Ground Water without proper licence or
permission in accordance with the regulations,
are to be construed as “theft” and in this context,
this Court has sought for the assistance of the
learned Public Prosecutor.
84. The learned Public Prosecutor cited the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case
of Gajadhar, Applicant Vs. State, Opposite Party,
reported in 1971 CRI LJ 1361(V 77 C 392) and
the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“8. In the instant case, applicant took out the
deed of agreement from a box kept in the outer
sitting room of Chandra Shekhar and tried to run
away with it. His intention in doing so was to
cause wrongful gain to his brother Moti Lal, so
that Banshidhar may not be able to rely on the
agreement in order to escape his liability from the
claim lodged against him by Moti Lal. It is thus
obvious that applicant did intend not only to cause
wrongful loss to Banshidhar but also to obtain
wrongful gain to himself at his expense. Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
425 of the Indian Penal Code reads:—
1. “Whether with intent to cause, or knowing
that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage
to the public or to any person, causes the
destruction of any property, or any such change in
any property or in the situation thereof as destroys
or diminishes its value or utility or affects it
injuriously, commits ‘mischief’.”
13. It is obvious that in the instant case all the
ingredients of Section 378 of the Indian Penal
Code are present. The deed of agreement was
removed by the applicant with dishonest intention
to get his claim for money against Banshidhar
decreed and thereby causing wrongful gain to
himself. It is not a case where the document has
been mutilated only with a view to cause wrongful
loss to Banshidhar.
14. When a person commits mischief, he only
causes loss to another but does not gain himself.
In theft wrongdoer makes dishonest gain at the
expense of the victim. This is the essential
difference between theft and mischief.”
85.In a short judgment, the Allahad High Court
in the case of Mahadeo Prasad and Anr Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
Emperor, dated 1st June 1923, reported in 75 Ind
Cas 159, which held as follows:
“4. In re Chockalingam Pillay 13
Ind. Cas.819 : (1912) M.W.N.119 : 11
M.L.T.162 : 13 Cr.L.J.131 was a case in
which the water had been cut off from
the natural source and conveyed
through pipes, and thus reduced into
effective possession. It was held both
with reference to the English authority
and to the definition of theft contained
in Section 378, Indian Penal Code that
it could be the subject of theft.”
86. In the case of T.S.Raghupathi Aiyar Versus
Narayana Goundan & Others, decided by the
High Court of Madras on 05.09.1928, reported in
CDJ 1928 MHC 102, our High Court held as
follows:
“7. The expressions “destruction of
any property,” “such change in any
property or in the situation thereof as
destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously,”
contained in Section 425, Indian Penal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
Code, appear to me to carry the
implication that something should be
done to the property contrary to its
natural use and serviceableness. It may
be mischief to throw the contents of a
pot of food upon the fire, but it is not
mischief, though it may be theft, to eat
the food. And so here, since the
graziers, by allowing their goats to
graze, did no more than put the grass to
its normal use, by the same reasoning
their act would not amount to mischief,
though it may have amounted to theft.
As to this, that offence not having
formed the subject of the charge, I do
not wish to express a more definite
opinion.”
87. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State(NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay, reported
in (2014) 9 SCC 772, held as follows:
“60.There cannot be any two
opinions that natural resources are the
assets of the nation and its citizens. It is
the obligation of all concerned,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
including the Central and the State
Governments, to conserve and not
waste such valuable resources. Article
48-A of the Constitution requires that
the State shall endeavour to protect and
improve the environment and safeguard
the forests and wildlife of the country.
Similarly, Article 51-A enjoins a duty
upon every citizen to protect and
improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife, and to have compassion for all
the living creatures. In view of the
constitutional provisions, the doctrine
of public trust has become the law of
the land. The said doctrine rests on the
principle that certain resources like air,
sea, water and forests are of such great
importance to the people as a whole
that it would be highly unjustifiable to
make them a subject of private
ownership.
61.Reading the provisions of the Act
minutely and carefully, prima facie we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
are of the view that there is no complete
and absolute bar in prosecuting
persons under the Penal Code where
the offences committed by persons are
penal and cognizable offence.”
88. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also
clarified that “there is no complete and absolute
bar in prosecuting persons under the IPC, where
the offences committed by persons are penal and
cognizable offence”.
89. In paragraph 71 of the above said
judgment, the Apex Court held that “however,
there may be a situation where a person without
any lease or licence or any authority enters into
river and extracts sand, gravel and other minerals
and remove or transport those minerals in a
clandestine manner with an intent to remove
dishonestly those minerals from the possession of
the State, is liable to be punished for committing
such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the
Penal Code.”
90. Interestingly, out High Court of Madras
decided a case on 17.01.1912 in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
Chockalingam Pillai Vs. Emperor in Criminal
Revision Case No.390 of 1911 and Criminal
Revision Petition No.293 of 1911. The Coram
decided the above case was Hon’ble
Justice.Miller, Hon’ble Justice.Sundara Aiyar and
Hon’ble Justice Benson.
91. In that case, the accused has been convicted
of the offence of theft by raising the door of Sluice
No.154 on the Kannadian canal without the
permission of the officers of the Government and
thereby lowering the level of the water therein.
The object of the accused in doing so was to divert
more water to his lands than they would otherwise
receive. He was charged in addition with the
offence of mischief and convicted of both offences
by the District Magistrate of Thirunelvelli. But the
Sessions Judge, on appeal, reversed the conviction
for mischief. The question to be decided by this
Court is whether the conviction for theft can be
sustained.
92. The Hon’ble Justice Miller, is of the opinion
that “It would seem to be right to do so in this
Country, where water is a highly-priced
commodity. In England, water flowing in a river is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
regarded as not owned by any person. The right of
the riparian proprietor is to use it. He is not the
owner of the water, which he is entitled to use. The
bed of a river which is not tidal and navigable is
vested partly in one owner and partly in another,
i.e., in the riparian proprietor on either side of the
river. On the other hand, in this Presidency, at
least in Ryotvari tracts, the bed of the river is
vested in the Government.”
93. If water in channels is owned by the
Government in this Country, there is no reason
why the Government should not be regarded as
having reduced it to possession in the
circumstances proved in this case and why it may
not be regarded as the subject of theft whether in
the case of any particular river, channel or
reservoir, the Government can be said to be in
possession must depend on the circumstances. The
question must be regarded is one of the fact to be
decided on the evidence in each case.
94. There seems to be no great difficulty,
therefore, in holding in this case in the
circumstances pointed out in the judgments of the
lower Courts that the water in the Kannadian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
Channel was in the possession of the Government.
95. Considering these aspects of the matter, the
Hon’ble Justice Miller, arrived a conclusion
“The conviction for theft cannot therefore be
sustained. The accused must in my opinion be
acquitted and the fine, if paid, must be
refunded”.
96. The Hon’ble Justice Benson, was of a
dissenting view and said that its flow, “the
question of possession must be decided in each
case by a reference to the degree of control
exercised, and the facts stated in that case do not
indicate the same degree of control as is indicated
in the present case. To mention only one point:- In
that case, the water is said to have run freely
through the channel from the river and to have
flowed into some Khal or Jhil unless diverted for
irrigation. In the present case, the access of the
water to the channel is controlled by a
Government head-sluice or regulator. Its flow in
the channel is at times controlled by dams built by
the Government, and the flow ends in a reservoir
or tank in the possession and under the control of
the Government and, in fact, belonging to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
Government.”
97. The theft was complete as soon as the dog
began to follow him. The essence of the offence
consists in the dishonest taking of property out of
the Possession of the owner, rather than in the
taking of it into thief’s own possession. If,
however, the word “take” is to be regarded as
connoting the idea of the custody passing to the
taker, I still think the requirements of Section 378
are fulfilled in the present case, for it is only
necessary that the thief should “intend to take,”
not necessarily that he should succeed in taking,
and I find it difficult to understand what other
intention the accused can have had if it was not to
“take” the water to his land, where it would be in
his possession and custody. That some of it might
soak into the ground and so be no longer in his
custody, or under his control, is immaterial. If any
drop of it was capable of being in the thief’s
custody the argument would have no force.
98. Recording the reasons, the Hon’ble Justice
Benson, in his judgment, held as follows:
“12. Both the learned Judges, who
heard the Revision Petition were of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
opinion that the water was in the
possession of the Government. With
that opinion, I agree and need therefore
only consider the further question upon
which their opinions differ. Now when
once it is decided that the water was
capable of being stolen, it seems to me
impossible to resist the conclusion that
it has been stolen in this case. The
petitioner certainly intended to take it
to his own field, and he took steps,
which he must have considered were
calculated to bring it there. He did not
have it in his custody during that
transit, but that, as Benson, J. points
out, is not necessary! If the petitioner’s
intention had been merely to let the
water run to waste, possibly the case
might have been different, though with
regard to illustration (c) to Section 425,
Indian Penal Code,it is to be observed
that the illustration does not show that
A took the ring from Z’s possession to
throw it away. The petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
dismissed.”
99. When the Hon’ble Justice Miller, held that
the theft cannot therefore be sustained. The
Hon’ble Justice Benson took the view that Water
is capable of being stolen.
100. The matter was decided by the Hon’ble
Justice Sundara Aiyar, proudly an Indian Judge of
Pre-Independence Era. The Hon’ble Justice
Sundara Aiyar in his short judgment, held as
follows:
“1.Both the learned Judges who
heard the revision petition were of
opinion that the water was in the
possession of the Government. With that
opinion I agree, and need, therefore,
only consider the further question upon
which their opinions differ.
2.Now, when once it is decided that
the water was capable of being stolen, it
seems to me impossible to resist the
conclusion that it has been stolen in this
case. The petitioner certainly intended
to take it to petitioner certainly intended
to take it to his own field, and he took
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
steps which he must have considered
were calculated to bring it there. He did
not have it in his custody during the
transit, but that, as Benson, J., points
out, is not necessary. If the petitioner’s
intention had been merely to let the
water run to waste, possibly the case
might have been different, though with
regard to illustration (c) to Section 425,
Indian Penal Code, it is to be observed
that the illustration does not show that
A too the ring from Z’s possession to
throw it a way.
3.The petition is dismissed.”
101. In the light of the spirit of the above
discussions, let us now consider Section 378 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“378. Theft.—Whoever, intending to
take dishonestly any movable property
out of the possession of any person
without that person’s consent, moves
that property in order to such taking, is
said to commit theft.”
Explanation 1.—“A thing so long as it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
is attached to the earth, not being
movable property, is not the subject of
theft; but it becomes capable of being
the subject of theft as soon as it is
severed from the earth.”
102. The ingredients of the above provision of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unambiguously
stipulates that whoever, intending to take
dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that person’s
consent. Thus, in respect of the water and other
natural resources, the State is the person. It is a
National asset. State is the custodian and in
possession of all such National assets including
water under the Earth. Thus, it is to be examined
whether Explanation 1, of Section 378 IPC can be
applied in respect of illegal Extraction of Ground
Water for commercial usage. Explanation 1 of
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
unambiguously enumerates that “ A thing
becomes capable of being the subject of theft as
soon as it is severed from the earth”. Thus, it is
crystal clear that so long as the water stays with
the Earth undisturbed, the provision may not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
apply. However, once it is severed from the Earth
by way of an Extraction, it becomes a “theft”, if it
is extracted without any authority of law. Thus, it
is unambiguous that a water is capable of being
stolen, the water under the Earth is attached with
the Earth. Water, being a National asset, if it is
extracted without any authority of law, then it
amounts to “theft” and certainly the persons
committing such offence of theft under the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), is liable to be prosecuted.
103. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), provides Punishment for Theft.
104. Let us now look into Section 425 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC); Mischief. Section 425 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stipulates that
“Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he
is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the
public or to any person, causes the destruction of
any property, or any such change in any property
or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it
injuriously, commits “mischief”.
105. Explanation 1 of Section 425 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), which reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
“It is not essential to the offence of
mischief that the offender should
intend to cause loss or damage to the
owner of the property injured or
destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends
to cause, or knows that he is likely to
cause, wrongful loss or damage to
any person by injuring any property,
whether it belongs to that person or
not.”
106. Illustration (b) of Section 425 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), states that “A introduces water
into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes
the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has
committed mischief.” Illustration (c)of Section
425 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), states that “A
voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to
Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful
loss to Z. A has committed mischief.”
107. Looking into the ingredients of Section 425
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Explanation 1
and illustrations of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
it is unambiguous that if water attached to the
Earth is extracted and wasted by a person, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
thereby causing a wrongful loss, then the offence
of Mischief under Section 425 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) is attracted. To make it clear, if any
person extract the Ground Water from the Earth
and simply wasting with an intention to cause
wrongful loss to the State, then the offence of
“Mischief” under Section 425 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) is committed by such person. Section
426 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) speaks about
Punishment for mischief. Thus, it is clear that an
offence of mischief may not be applicable in
respect of certain cases. However, in respect of
the petitioners in all these writ petitions, if they
extract water for commercial usage without
obtaining any proper licence or permission, such
an Extraction or over Extraction, will certainly
attract Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and all those persons are liable to be
prosecuted for the offence of theft.”
13. As held by this Court, in the abovesaid judgment, water is
capable of being stolen. Thus, if any complaint regarding illegal extraction
of water or theft of water is made, a criminal case is to be registered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
jurisdictional Police concerned. Apart from the actions taken by the Public
Works Department and Water Resource Organisation Authorities, such
criminal cases are to be registered and prosecuted in the manner known to
law. Therefore, the petitioner or any other person, is at liberty to file a
criminal complaint in the event of theft of water through concealed
pipelines or in an illegal manner or otherwise. Therefore, any illegality in
the matter of extraction of water is to be dealt in accordance with law and
the manner contemplated.
14. However, distribution of water must be done in a judicious
manner by the Authorities Competent by formulating a policy in such a
manner without depriving any citizen from getting water for their usage.
Any such deprival of water to any citizen amounts to violation of
fundamental right of such citizen and therefore, the denial of equal
distribution of water must be viewed seriously and the Government is also
expected to sensitise the issue, so as to ensure that every citizen is entitled
for the usage of water, as the water is the property of our Great Nation and
no citizen can claim any right over the river or dam water, which has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
distributed to all.
15. This being the principles, it is for the Government to
regulate the distribution of water. However, such distribution of water
cannot be denied to any citizen whether it is registered or unregistered
ayacuts. However, the decision to provide water to registered ayacuts at first
and thereafter, to unregistered ayacuts is logical and reasonable.
16. However, the claim of R-13 that their ayacuts are also to be
registered must be considered as they are also agriculturists and
participating in the irrigation process. Thus, there cannot be any
discrimination amongst the agriculturists merely on the ground of
registration as every agriculturists are in the process of performing
agricultural activities and contributing for the development of our Great
Nation. Thus, no agriculturist can be discriminated and any such
discrimination will lead to unconstitutionality. Therefore, the claim of R-13
for regulating the ayacuts are also to be considered and based on the
development of agricultural lands, steps are to be taken then and there to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
regulate the distribution of water for the benefit of agricultural activities and
its developments.
17. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, this
Court is inclined to pass the following orders:-
(1) The relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition
stands rejected.
(2) The respondents 1 to 6, 11 and 12 are directed to consider and
formulate a policy to regulate distribution of water for irrigation and other
purposes, if not already formulated, in a judicious manner and such a policy
is to be formulated taking into consideration the public interest involved.
(3) The respondents 1 to 6, 11 and 12 are directed to conduct
periodical inspections regarding illegal extraction of water either through
pipelines or through any other mode by anybody and in the event of
identifying any such illegal extraction of water, criminal case is to be
registered and all such persons involved in such illegalities must be
prosecuted in the manner known to law.
(4) The respondents 1 to 6, 11 and 12 are directed to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
claim of R-13 for regulation of unregistered ayacuts by following the
procedures as contemplated.
18. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed
of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
20-10-2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Irrigation (General),
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The Chief Engineer (Irrigation),
Pollachi Region,
Public Works Department,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
4.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Lower Bhavani Basin Division,
Erode – 638 002.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization,
Public Works Department,
Bhavani Sagar Dam Division,
Bhavani Sagar,
Erode District.
6.The Superintendent Engineer,
Erode Circle,
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
No.216, Arumugam Street,
Thirunagar Colony,
Erode – 638 003.
7.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
8.The Chief Vigilance Officer,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
9.The Superintendent Engineer,
Erode Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.31515 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
10.The Chief Engineer,
Erode Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Erode.
11.The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode.
12.The District Revenue Officer,
Erode District,
Erode.
WP 31515 of 2016
20-10-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
