Madras High Court
K.Maniarasu vs The District Collector on 1 September, 2021
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
K.Maniarasu .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The District Collector
Office of Collectorate
Thiruppur District
2. The District Revenue Officer
Thiruppur District, Thiruppur
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Udumalpet, Thiruppur District
4. The Tahsildar
Udumalpet Taluk
Udumalpet, Thiruppur District
5. The Superintendent of Police
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur
6. The Inspector of Police
Udumalpet Police Station
Udumalpet, Thiruppur District
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
7. T.Pachaiyappan .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 23.01.2018 made in W.P.No.11382 of 2017.
For Appellant :: Mr.N.Nithianandam
For Respondents :: Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate
for R1 to R6
Mr.C.Prakasam
for R7/Caveator
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated
23.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.11382 of 2017 and the writ petitioner
is the appellant herein.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the
impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, contended that when
the appellant is a permanent resident of Kurincheri Village in Udumalpet
Taluk, Tiruppur District carrying on his agricultural activities to eke out his
living, when there are no special irrigation facilities or PAP facilities for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
villages like Kurincherry, Eripalayam, Chinnaveerampatty, Pookulam,
Ponneri and Sundakkampalayam in Tiruppur District, the rain water running
through Raja Vaikkal and the waters of seven ponds situated in the said
villages have been the only source of water for the wells and water bodies
situate in and around the vicinity and this is also the only source of water for
thousands of small farmers in his village, some politicians have stealthily,
with the connivance of the respondents 1 to 4, taken steps to take the
groundwater from the villages mentioned above through pipelines to their
lands situated far away with a business motive. The seventh respondent
herein also applied to the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, the second
respondent herein on 23.1.2015 seeking permission to take water from the
land in Chinnaveerampatty, after purchasing the said land in the year 2014,
to his lands situated at Kottamangalam Village. Although objections were
made by the general public not to allow the seventh respondent to take
water, without considering the objections, the respondents appeared to have
given permission to the seventh respondent to take water for irrigation of his
own lands by laying underground pipelines through these villages. After
enquiry, when the appellant came to know that there was an order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
27.8.2015 in favour of the seventh respondent allowing him to take water
from the appellant's village to his village, this was questioned before the
learned single Judge, among other reasons, citing that without conducting
any enquiry in accordance with law and without even receiving any
objections from the affected parties, the impugned order has been passed,
therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with, it was not considered.
When the second respondent has caused huge damage to the groundwater in
the appellant's village by allowing the seventh respondent to extract water,
the impugned order passed by the second respondent is unsustainable in
law. But the learned single Judge has not considered the objections raised
by the appellant and his villagers.
3. Contending further, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
stated that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court to find out
the pros and cons of taking water from the appellant's village to the seventh
respondent's village through underground pipeline, has also filed his
detailed report, however, that report was also heavily objected. But the
learned single Judge has brushed aside the objections of the appellant. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
the reasons assigned through the objections filed to the report of the
Advocate Commissioner have not weighed with the learned single Judge,
which has caused huge prejudice to the appellant and his villagers, the
impugned order is liable to be interfered with. Concluding his arguments, he
has contended that the learned single Judge has proceeded as if there was no
objection from the village people with regard to the laying of pipelines by
the seventh respondent. On the contrary, there were objections raised by
several persons, therefore, the finding given by the learned single Judge
dismissing the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
4. In reply, supporting the reasons given in the impugned order and
also the finding given by the learned single Judge, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submitted that if the
argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
the seventh respondent cannot be permitted to take water from the
appellant's village, for the simple reason that the appellant's village will be
facing scarcity of water, is accepted, then, tomorrow, the very same
appellant, in the event of facing scarcity of water in his village, will not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
able to take water from the neighbouring village, as the appellant has
miserably forgotten to appreciate the philosophy of give and take. Today, if
the water available in the appellant's village is allowed to be taken by the
seventh respondent for cultivating the land belonging to him, tomorrow, the
agricultural produce going to be harvested by the seventh respondent from
his land is not going to be consumed by the seventh respondent alone, but it
is going to be used by all the citizens. Therefore, when the groundwater
available in one village is allowed to be taken for the use of the same
villagers or the neighbouring villagers, that cannot be made as an issue or
subject matter of lis, because the second respondent, after appreciating the
case of the seventh respondent that his lands situated in the neighbouring
village could not be utilized for any agricultural purpose due to the failure
of monsoon, thought it fit to impose multiple conditions, while passing the
order impugned in the writ petition, making it clear that breach of any one
of the conditions would result in the cancellation of the permission granted
to him. Therefore, the second respondent and other official respondents are
aware of the conditions and they are also following upon the matter and as
and when any breach takes place to anyone of the conditions, they would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
take appropriate action. Hence, no interference is called for with the
impugned order, he pleaded.
5. Having heard both sides, considering the reasons assigned by the
learned single Judge, on perusal of the report filed by the Advocate
Commissioner, we are not able to find any space to interfere with the
impugned order, as we are also in agreement with the finding of the learned
single Judge holding that there is no error in the order passed by the second
respondent allowing the seventh respondent to complete the pipe laying
work which was in progress with necessary police protection of the
jurisdictional police. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that there was heavy objection by the public, has
also been rightly examined by the learned single Judge holding that the
objections raised in this regard were only by the appellant, whereas there
was no objection by the general public with regard to the permission
granted to the seventh respondent to draw water from his lands in Survey
No.347/A2 to his lands at Kottamangalam Village. Therefore, finding no
merits whatsoever, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
C.M.P.No.8993 of 2018 is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to
costs.
Speaking/Non Speaking order (T.R.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
Index : yes/no 01.09.2021
ss
To
1. The District Collector
Office of Collectorate
Thiruppur District
2. The District Revenue Officer
Thiruppur District, Thiruppur
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Udumalpet, Thiruppur District
4. The Tahsildar
Udumalpet Taluk
Udumalpet, Thiruppur District
5. The Superintendent of Police
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur
6. The Inspector of Police
Udumalpet Police Station
Udumalpet, Thiruppur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
T.RAJA, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
ss
W.A.No.1095 of 2018
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
