Madras High Court
The Panchayat President vs K.Johnson ... 1St on 23 September, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.1556 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 25.04.2025
Pronounced on : 23.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.1556 of 2021 AND
W.P.(MD)No.13760 of 2021 AND
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6409, 10715 & 10796 of 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1556 of 2021
The Panchayat President,
Seelayampatti Village Panchayat,
Theni Panchayat Union,
Theni Taluk,
Theni District. ... Appellant / Respondent No.4
Vs.
1. K.Johnson ... 1st Respondent/Writ petitioner
2. The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Theni District, Theni.
3. The Tahsildar,
Theni Taluk Office,
Theni Taluk,
Theni District.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Theni Panchayat Union,
Theni Taluk,
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
2 W.A.(MD)NO.1556 OF 2021
Theni Taluk. ... Respondents 2 to 4 /
Respondents 1 to 3
5. The Panchayat President,
Veppampatti Village Panchayat,
Chinnamanur Panchayat Union,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. ... 5th respondent / 5th Respondent
6. G.Paraman
7. M.Thiruppathi
8. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
9. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
10. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
11. The State Ground and Surface Water,
Resources Date Center,
Rep. By its Chief Engineer,
Tharamani,
Chennai – 600 113.
(R-8 to11 are suo motu impleaded
vide order dated 05.02.2025) ... Respondents
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
3 W.A.(MD)NO.1556 OF 2021
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 07.07.2021
made in W.P.(MD)No.8461 of 2021 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.D.Kirubakaran.
For R-2,R-3,R-5 &
R-8 to R-11 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by,
Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-1 : Ms.N.Krishnaveni,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.P.Dhanasekaran.
***
W.P.(MD)No.13760 of 2021
The Seelayampatti Village Panchayat,
Rep. by its President,
Theni Panchayat Union,
Theni Taluk,
Theni District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Theni District, Theni.
2. The Tahsildar,
Theni Taluk Office,
Theni Taluk,
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
4 W.A.(MD)NO.1556 OF 2021
Theni District.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Theni Panchayat Union,
Theni Taluk,
Theni Taluk.
4. The Panchayat President,
Veppampatti Village Panchayat,
Chinnamanur Panchayat Union,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
5. K.Johnson
6. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
7. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
8. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
9. The State Ground and Surface Water,
Resources Date Center,
Rep. By its Chief Engineer,
Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113.
(R-6 to 9 are suo motu impleaded
vide order dated 05.02.2025) ... Respondents
4/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
5 W.A.(MD)NO.1556 OF 2021
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, calling for the records relating to the impugned letter issued by
the 3rd respondent in his letter in Na.Ka. No.
1862/2019/B1 dated 25.06.2019 to set aside the same as illegal and
without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-1toR-3 &
R-6 to R-9 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by,
Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-5 : Ms.N.Krishnaveni,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.P.Dhanasekaran.
For R-4 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.D.Kirubakaran.
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The President of Seelayampatti Village Panchayat is the
appellant in W.A.(MD)No.1556 of 2021 and the writ petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.13760 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
2.This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated
07.07.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.8461 of 2021 filed by Thiru.K.Johnson.
Thiru.Johnson had filed the said writ petition on the strength of the
order dated 25.06.2019 issued by the Block Development Officer,
Village Panchayat, Panchayat Union, Theni. The learned single Judge
had allowed W.P.(MD)No.8461 of 2021 filed by Johnson on the basis
of the said order dated 25.06.2019. That is why, even while filing the
writ appeal, the appellant had filed an independent writ petition
assailing the validity of the order dated 25.06.2019.
3.The appellant was impleaded as fourth respondent in W.P.
(MD)No.8461 of 2021 filed by the first respondent herein. The writ
petitioner was having lands in Veppampatti Village as well as
Seelayampatti Village. The writ petitioner is developing a coconut
grove in Veppampatti Village. Since sufficient water was not available
in Veppampatti, he laid underground pipelines for transporting water
from his land located at Seelayampatti Village to his coconut farm at
Veppampatti. According to the writ petitioner, he had already
obtained permission from the Block Development Officer, Theni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
Panchayat Union and he had paid a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. But the
persons shown as private respondents in the writ petition damaged
the pipelines leading to registration of criminal cases. Peace
committee meeting was convened. The writ petitioner wanted
restoration of pipelines. He submitted representations. Since they
were not considered, W.P.(MD)No.8461 of 2021 came to be filed. The
learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following
terms:-
“8.In the considered view of this Court, the
third respondent has given permission for laying the
pipelines through proceedings, dated 25.06.2019. It
is evident from these proceedings that conditions
have also been imposed for laying the pipelines.
Pursuant to the permission granted by the third
respondent, the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.
3,20,000/- and it has been acknowledged by the
Seelayampatti Panchayat. It is not known as to how
a stand has now been taken by the 4th respondent
to the effect that no permission was given to the
petitioner for laying the pipelines. The counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents are not able
to refute the fact that the Block Development Officer
has given a specific permission for laying the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
pipelines through proceedings, dated 25.06.2019
and it remains in force. This proceedings has not
been recalled or modified or cancelled by the Block
Development Officer. It is not known as to why the
6th and 7th respondents opposed the laying of the
pipelines. Even though an allegation has been made
by the petitioner that these respondents were
opposing for extraneous consideration, this Court
does not want to enter in to that issue and it may
not be relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ
petition.
9.The only issue that requires the
consideration of this court is as to whether the
petitioner has obtained proper permission for
laying the pipelines. It is clear from the proceedings
of the third respondent, dated 25.06.2019 that the
petitioner has obtained necessary permission. If
there was opposition from the Villagers, the same
ought to have been sorted out and such an attempt
was made by the authorities by calling for a Peace
Committee Meeting. It is evident that more than the
villagers, it is the 6th and 7th respondents, who are
opposing the laying of the pipelines for reasons best
known to them. Unfortunately, the Tahsildar seems
to have been directed status quo to be maintained.
By issuing such an order, the Tahsildar has virtually
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
nullified the earlier order passed by the Block
Development Officer, who is a superior authority.
10.In view of the above discussion, there shall
be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to act on the
representations made by the petitioner, on
12.12.2020 and 15.03.2021 and permit the
petitioner to restore the pipelines that are alleged to
have been damaged by the 6th & 7th respondents.
The petitioner shall be permitted to lay the
pipelines in accordance with the permission granted
by the third respondents through proceedings,
dated 25.06.2019. The petitioner is also directed to
strictly comply with the conditions imposed by the
third respondent, while granting permission.”
Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as
well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State.
5. Since certain issues of fundamental importance had arisen
for consideration, we suo motu impleaded the Government. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
following seven questions were formulated:-
“1. Whether a person owning or legally
occupying a piece of land can draw water from
Well or through any mechanised means without
any upper limit ?
2. What are the implications of unbridled
drawal of water on the rights of those residing in
the vicinity since they are also entitled to tap the
ground water table?
3. Whether the Government proposes to
bring in legislation to regulate the right to draw
underground water ?
4. Whether water drawn from a Well can be
permitted to be transported through pipeline for
irrigation of land located far away from the Well ?
If so, to what distance can such transportation be
allowed ? What are the norms applicable ?
5. If permission is proposed to be granted,
who will be the authority competent to grant
permission?. Since in the very nature of things,
permission has to be conditional, what will be the
consequence in the event of violation ?
6. What is the mechanism to monitor the
compliance of conditions ?
7. Since commercial exploitation of water is
inevitable and is a reality, what is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
legislative/statutory framework? The issue
cannot be dealt with only through executive
orders because they cannot provide for penal
consequence.”
6. The official respondents filed status report purporting
answers to the queries posted by us.
7. The writ petitioner would claim that he had already taken
permission from the jurisdictional Block Development Officer. In fact,
the learned single Judge had also proceeded on the premise that
permission had been granted. The communication vide Na.Ka.
No.1862/2019/B.1 dated 25.06.2019 relied on by the writ petitioner
reads as follows:-
'Njdp Cuhl;rp xd;wpaj;jpw;Fl;gl;l
rPiyak;gl;b Cuhl;rpapy; jpU.tp.jdNrfud;
vd;gth; jdJ nrhe;j tptrha epyj;jpw;F jz;zPh;
nfhz;L nry;y Gjpa igg;iyd; mikj;Jr;
nry;Yk; NghJ Cuhl;rpf;F nrhe;jkhd
nry;yhapak;kd; Nfhtpy; rhiyia
Nrjg;gLj;jpajhy;> rhiyia GJg;gpg;gjw;F MFk;
jz;l njhifapid nrYj;Jtjhf njhptpj;J
ghh;it 2-y; fhZk; tpz;zg;gk; mspj;Js;shh;.
ghh;it 1-y; fhZk; kjpg;gPl;L
mwpf;ifapd;gb rPiyak;gl;b Cuhl;rpf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
nrhe;jkhd nry;yhapak;kd; Nfhtpy; rhiyia
GJg;gpg;gjw;F &.3>20>000/- (&gha;
%d;W ,yl;rj;J ,Ugjhapuk; kl;Lk;) kjpg;gPl;by;
gzp Nkw;nfhs;s Ntz;bAs;sjhy;> rhiyia
GJg;gpg;gjw;F MFk; jz;l njhifapid
rPiyak;gl;b Cuhl;rp mYtyfj;jpy; nrYj;jpl
kDjhuUf;F njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.
epge;jidfs;
1. Cuhl;rpf;F nrhe;jkhd rhiyNahuk;
igg;fs; gjpj;Jf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lk;.
2. Cuhl;rpf;F nrhe;jkhd kz; rhiy>
rpkpz;l; rhiy kw;Wk; jhh;rhiyfspy; igg;fs;
gjpf;f $lhJ. kPwp gjpj;jhy; Cuhl;rp rl;lk; 1994d;
gb chpa eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;sg;gLk;.
3. igg; iyd; mikf;Fk;NghJ Cuhl;rpf;F
nrhe;jkhd rhiyia Nrjg;gLj;jpdhNyh my;yJ
rhiyia Njhz;bdhNyh> Nkw;gb rhiyia
rPuikf;f MFk; njhifapid jdpaNu Vw;f
Ntz;Lk;.”
8.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the
appellant, no permission had been granted as such. Damages had
been levied for restoring the road which had been damaged on
account of laying of pipes. By no stretch of imagination, can it be
construed an order granting permission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
9.Two villages are involved. One is Seelayampatti and the other
is Veppampatti. The writ petitioner wants to transport water from
Seelayampatti to Veppampatti. Obviously as a result, there will be an
impact on the ground water table of Seelayampatti. When the writ
petitioner installs a bore well in the land owned by him, he will be
drawing water from the ground underneath. The ground water table
is integrally linked to the entire locality. Extracting water is not akin
to extracting minerals. The principles evolved in connection with
exploitation of underground minerals may not be useful to lay down
standards for tapping of water underneath. Time has come to evolve
a new paradigm. If there is over extraction of water through the writ
petitioner's well, it would have a severe and adverse bearing on the
ground water table of the entire Seelayampatti Village. It will also
impinge on the rights of the other land owners in the vicinity.
10.The issue on hand is not merely one between the authority
and the applicant. In matters concerning ground water, the
community is the prime stakeholder. In the very nature of things, the
local body will have to be put on notice before issuing any NOC or
granting permission in favour of the applicant. Hence, before
granting permission, the local body will have to be put on notice. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
administrative order can be passed in disregard of the rights of the
third parties. Even the local body cannot arbitrarily grant leave or
permission. It will have to involve the members of the general public.
In the case on hand, the appellant / local body was not at all
associated. This aspect of the matter was not taken not of by the
learned single Judge. On this ground, the order impugned in this writ
appeal is set aside.
11.Even though the officials concerned filed more than one
status report in response to the queries formulated by us, we are of
the view that this issue merits the consideration of the Government
at the highest level. We therefore direct the respondents 5 to 7 to
deliberate on the aforesaid issues and come out with a
comprehensive response. The traditional principle is that no
mandamus to legislate can be issued. But when it is evident that
there is no statute governing a pressing day to day problem, the
constitutional court is certainly entitled to draw the attention of the
government and nudge it to take action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
12.With this direction to the Government, the writ appeal as
well as the writ petition are allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
23.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU/SKM
To:
1. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.
2. The Tahsildar, Theni Taluk Office,
Theni Taluk, Theni District.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Theni Panchayat Union, Theni Taluk, Theni Taluk.
4. The Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
5. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
6. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
7. The State Ground and Surface Water,
Resources Date Center,
Rep. By its Chief Engineer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113.
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU/SKM
W.A.(MD)No.1556 of 2021 AND
23.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:31:34 pm )
