Madras High Court
M/S.Village Drinking Water And Health ... vs The District Collector on 9 June, 2021
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, S.Ananthi
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
M/s.Village Drinking Water and Health Society,
Rep. By its Treasurer P.Mani,
Selvanagar,
Coodalore East Panchayat,
Aravakuruchi Taluk,
Karur District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Karur District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Karur District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
WRO, Ground Water Division,
Trichy.
4.S.Shanthi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
Na.Ka.G1/11855/2020, dated 18.11.2020 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/28
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel
State Government
for Mr.K.Baskaran
For R – 4 : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Dhanasekaran
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] This Writ Petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a Society called Village Drinking Water and Health Society, represented by its Treasurer, Coodalore East Panchayat, Aravakuruchi Taluk, Karur District.
2.The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the first respondent/District Collector, Karur District, dated 18.11.2020. By the said order, the District Collector/Tmt.S.Malarvizhi I.A.S., has granted permission to the fourth respondent to draw a pipeline along the road margin on the Government Poramboke land for drawal of water from a land owned by her to a Farm developed by her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
3.The petitioner, as a Public Interest Litigant, has challenged the impugned order, firstly, on the ground of mala fide exercise of power that, the impugned order suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction and the purpose for which the pipeline is to be drawn is not permissible and there is no public interest served on account of it and purely for the private Farm of the fourth respondent, the water pipeline has been permitted to be drawn in the Government land along the road margin.
4.It is submitted that at the time of the Writ Petition was entertained, an interim order was granted and inspite of the interim order, the fourth respondent proceeded with the work after 22.12.2021 and suo motu action for contempt was initiated and it is only thereafter, the work was stopped and pursuant to the directions issued earlier in the Writ Petition, the pipeline has been removed and we are informed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Government that except the distance of about 2 kms the pipeline has been removed. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal because it is devoid of jurisdiction, as the original application filed by the fourth respondent for grant of permission to lay the pipeline along the road margin, was submitted on 01.06.2020. Thereafter, an order has been passed on 24.07.2020, which was a order passed by the Tahsildar, wherein it appears that the permission was not accorded. This order was put to challenge by the fourth respondent in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 W.P.(MD).No.11825 of 2020. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Tahsildar will not have jurisdiction to pass the order and quashed the order and remitted the matter to the District Collector, Karur to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. It was made clear that the Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. Thus, the entire issue was left open for the District Collector, Karur, to consider. Pursuant to which, the District Collector has passed an order on 01.10.2020, rejecting the application submitted by the fourth respondent. This order was passed by Thiru.T.Anbalagan, I.A.S, the District Collector, Karur. In the later part of this order, we will go into the basis for rejection of the application and we will now proceed to complete the narration of the facts.
5.It appears that there was a change of District Collector and obviously, the change should have been after 1st October, 2020 and the new Collector should have taken charge during the first week of November, 2020. Be that as it may, the fourth respondent appears to have submitted a petition styled as an appeal petition to the District Collector. Essentially, what the fourth respondent wanted was to re-do the entire exercise and grant permission for her to draw the pipeline. The District Collector appointed a Committee consisting of 15 officials, inspection was conducted and by an elaborate 13 page order, permission has been granted. This order is impugned in this Writ Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
6.We have elaborately heard Mr.K.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Baskaran, learned Government counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.P.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
7.The following issues arise for consideration in this writ petition:-
(i) Firstly, whether the District Collector who passed the impugned order had jurisdiction to do so, when an identical request was rejected by her predecessor in office hardly 20 days before she assumed office as District Collector, Karur District.
(ii) Can permission be granted for a private person / individual / organization for drawal of water from a land which is situated close to river Amaravathi and if permission can be granted, for what purposes such permission can be granted.
(iii) whether the permission sought for by the fourth respondent was for bonafide agricultural purposes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 and whether the reference to G.O.Ms.No.202, Revenue Department, dated 24.04.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.142, Public Works (R2) Department, dated 23.07.2014, as referred to and relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Government would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Whether the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of malafide and whether there is any arbitrariness in the exercise of power by the District Collector.
(v) There are other subsidiary issues which we will deal with as we proceed to consider the main issues.
8.The fourth respondent had purchased an extent of land on 16.03.2020 which is situated in close proximately to River Amaravathi. Thereafter, on 01.06.2020, the fourth respondent submitted an application to the Revenue Authorities of Karur District requesting for grant of permission to lay pipeline from the said land to the lands situated in another Village to enable her to draw water from the Well situate in the land to be taken to a Rosewood tree Farm situated in a distance of about https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 13/16 Kms. There is a dispute with regard to the distance between the two Villagers, whether it is 13 Kms or 16 Kms. The Tahsildar passed an order dated 24.07.2020 rejecting the application. A writ petition was filed by the fourth respondent before this Court challenging the said order. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to reject the application and it is the District Collector who may have to take a decision on such application.
9.We find that from the order passed in the Writ Petition, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents were heard, though the name of the Government Advocate is mentioned to have appeared for the respondents. However, the Court did not go into the merits of the matter, but yet held that the Tahsildar will not have a jurisdiction to reject the application. This finding rendered by the learned Writ Court is without a counter-affidavit from the Tahsildar and without hearing the District Collector and the Tahsildar, respondents 1 and 2 in the said Writ Petition. This order passed in the Writ Petition has given a leverage to the Writ Petitioner therein. Nevertheless, the then District Collector took a balanced approach, examined the application, appointed a Committee consisting of few officials, conducted an inspection and came to the conclusion that the lands purchased by the fourth respondent is situated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 within the prohibited distance of 200 meters from Amaravathi River bed and there is already an existing Well in the said land. The lands to which the water was proposed to be transported is 16 Kms away from the land in question and more than 11,000 Rosewood trees have been planted by the fourth respondent in the said lands and there are as many as seven bore-Wells in the said lands and that the fourth respondent is also supplying water to hotels/commercial establishments and therefore, the permission was rejected.
10.It appears that the fourth respondent was waiting for the change of the officer. As soon as the District Collector was transferred and a new District Collector was appointed, an appeal petition had been submitted to the newly appointed District Collector on 12.11.2020.
11.Though it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent that it is not an appeal petition, we shall go by the nomenclature used by the 4th respondent as noted by the District Collector, in her order, dated 18.11.2020. The District Collector, in no uncertain terms, holds that the petition to be an appeal petition. If it is an appeal petition, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the same, as she cannot act as a Judge of her own cause in the sense that her previous incumbent had passed an order on 01.10.2020, rejecting the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 application which cannot be rewritten or reviewed by her as an Appellate Authority by another order, dated 18.11.2020. This is sufficient to quash the impugned order.
12.The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent is that in terms of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1977, the power to modify or rescind is inherent with the Authority on whom the power has been conferred. The power to pass such an order is traced to G.O.Ms.No.142, Public Works (R2) Department, dated 23.07.2014.
13.In our considered view, the submission made on behalf of the fourth respondent does not merit consideration. The power exercised by the District Collector is a power of review, which has not been conferred on her under any statute. Therefore, the exercise of such power is illegal and therefore, it has to be termed as a perverse exercise of power branding the order as mala fide. The District Collector cannot trace her power to grant permission by falling back on G.O.Ms.No.142. The said Government Order was issued for a different purpose bearing in mind the public interest. The need arose to issue the Government Order was on account of unethical and over exploitation of ground water and river water. Therefore, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Senior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 Counsel appearing for the Government to read as if G.O.Ms.No.142, confers supreme authority on the District Collector. As the Head of the Revenue District, the District Collector has a statutory and moral duty to protect all natural resources in the District. Contrarily, the incumbent has done otherwise.
14.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government referred to clause (c) of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.142 in paragraph No.3(I). The said condition pertains to drawal and transportation of ground water for agricultural and horticultural purposes in the State of Tamil Nadu and the prohibited distance for such purpose is 200 meters from the river bed.
15.As held by us earlier, G.O.Ms.No.142 cannot be a source of power for the District Collector to grant permission to lay an underground pipeline from a private water source to another private property crossing two Villages to the distance of about 13/16 kms. Thus, the District Collector has abused her jurisdiction to say the least, she has functioned in the manner unbecoming of a public servant. However, we are conscious of the fact that the District Collector has not been impleaded by name as a respondent in the Writ Petition. Therefore, we say nothing more about her, but we are entitled to comment upon the correctness of the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 passed by the District Collector. Thus, the District Collector having reviewed the earlier order, Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act will not come to the aid and protection of the District Collector, as was argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, more particularly, when the District Collector herself does not trace her power or seek umbrage under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act. The District Collector had earlier, while, rejecting the request for grant of permission by an order, dated 01.10.2020 found the distance between the land in question and the river bed to be less than 200 meters, to be precise 130 meters. The respondents including the District Collector would now state that such measurement is wrong and it is 220.8 meters. It is rather surprising and shocking for this Court to find that the District Administration is taking such a stand oblivious of the fact that the water is found beneath the soil which is termed as a water table and river water percolates beneath the soil and the purpose for which the prohibited distance has been fixed and it is with the concept that on account of percolation of river water, the lands lying besides the rivers, lakes etc are bound to have copious supply of water throughout the year. Therefore, the District Collector, who mans the District and who is an Officer of the Government, should act in a pro-active manner to preserve natural resources and ensure that it is evenly distributed among the general public. The earlier District Collector, who rejected the request, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 found that there is a possibility of the fourth respondent drawing water and pumping it into a Well situated in the land. Thus, the impugned order, dated 18.11.2020 has been passed based on irrelevant considerations.
16.Very often, we find that when the Public Interest Litigation is filed objecting to the location of a Tasmac Liquor Shop or a Bar, the Public Interest Litigant would state that the shop/bar is located within the prohibited distance. The Courts have often taken a view that the distance may be specified under the Rules as 50 meters or 100 meters, but such distance cannot be calculated with a mathematical precision and it requires to be viewed with a larger perspective. Assuming there is a ban for locating a Tasmac Liquor Shop or a bar within 50 meters from an Educational Institution, it will not lie in the mouth of the Authorities to say that the shop is situated 49.8 meters from the Educational Institution, therefore, it is within 50 meters. If such a stand is taken, the Court will brand the order to the utterly perverse and would have no hesitation to strike down the order. The same analogy is applicable to the instant case assuming that the distance is 220.8 meters.
17.What surprises us is the composition of a jumbo Committee consisting of 15 officials. Day in, day out, this Court has been issuing directions for consideration of the representations, for grant of basic https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 needs of the public. This Court with a fond hope that the Authorities will comply with the orders within the time frame stipulated, also fixes time frame. Upon receipt of the order invariably, the Revenue Officials do not comply with the order, driving the petitioner to file contempt petitions. When the contempt petitions are filed, the Officials immediately file a Writ Appeal with a delay of more than two years. We can give statistics as to how many orders, the officials of the Karur District have not complied with and how many contempt petitions had been filed before this Court for non-compliance of the orders of this Court, especially, by the Revenue Authorities. If such data is disclosed, it will shameful to the District Administration of Karur District.
18.As pointed out earlier, this Court is thoroughly shocked by the action of the District Collector, in appointing a Committee consisting of 15 Officials and the Officials have acted in such supersonic speed and submitted a report on 17.11.2020 and promptly, the District Collector on 18.11.2020 has passed the impugned order. Thus, we fully agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent seems to be a very powerful person. We say nothing more of about that.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
19.The order passed by the District Collector on 01.10.2020 rejecting the application for grant of permission to lay pipeline was based upon a report of the Committee. The said report has not been disclosed and in no uncertain terms, the District Collector holds that the distance in 130 meters. In the instant case, the Authorities say it is 220.8 meters stating that they measured the property from the middle of the river bed. As observed by us earlier, mathematical calculation have no place in this matter.
20.As per the report which was relied on by the District Collector while rejecting the permission by order dated 01.10.2020, the distance is 130 meters. Merely because the earlier report consisted only of three officials, now 15 officials inspected cannot change the distance. In fact, the original report cannot be superseded by increasing the number of officers unless and until a higher authority had examined the matter. Thus, we can safely conclude that the entire Revenue Administration of Karur District headed by the District Collector has worked for the fourth respondent for her personal benefit. This is sufficient to strike down the impugned order as being vitiated by malafide exercise of power. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
21.The District Collector in the impugned order has referred to a discreet enquiry report while admitting that there is objection made by the Villagers, but she would discard the objection by stating that it was only with a view to grab the land along with the Well. In all fairness, the District Collector ought to have considered the objection, especially when it is by the local Villagers. In any event, the haste in which the matter proceeded is sufficient to hold that the impugned order is vitiated with arbitrariness, nepotism and malafide exercise of power.
22.It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent that the activity done by the fourth respondent in the another Village is agricultural activity and in this regard, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the definition of 'Agriculture' under Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 and also submitted that identical definition also finds place in the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act.
23.Firstly, the fourth respondent, while she made an application, had disclosed that she had planted more than 11,000 rose wood trees in her land, which was given by a private organization and her stand was that it will save the environment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
24.Rosewood is a schedule timber under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and it finds place in serial No.2 of the Schedule to the Act. Probably, planting a rose wood tree may not require permission, but having grown a tree, it being a schedule timber, it cannot be cut, removed or even moved out of the area without the permission of the Authorities, for which specific Rules have been framed. In fact, due to heavy wind, if a Rosewood tree or a teakwood tree falls down and the tree is in a patta land, the owner of the patta land and the owner of the windfallen tree are required to seek permission of the officials under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Therefore, reference to the definition of Agriculture under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act is of little avail. When the fourth respondent submitted an appeal petition to the new District Collector, she had added that apart from the rose wood and teak wood trees, there are other activities also carried out. The test is what is the predominant use. The land is a private Farm, wherein more than 11,000 rose wood trees have been planted under the pretext of saving environment. It is an admitted fact that there are several Wells/bore-Wells in the said lands. But the fourth respondent would state that the bore-Wells have gone dry. Several agriculturists are starving because of lack of water in their Wells. We are of the view that by virtue of the permission granted in the impugned order, the District Administration has catered to the luxury of the fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
25.Nevertheless, the purpose for which the application was submitted for drawal of water through a pipeline running through a distance of 13/16 kms along the road margin cannot be termed to be a bonafide agricultural purpose. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.202 which was referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the Government is wholly inapplicable ie., in respect of the track rent which has been fixed for drawal of water from the rivers where the agriculturists are granted permission to draw water from the river and necessarily pipelines have to go under the soil or it may have to go under the lands of a private party. Therefore, we hold that G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 24.04.2000 nor G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 23.07.2014 confers power on the authority to grant permission as sought for by the fourth respondent and as granted by the District Collector by the impugned order.
26.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent was not heard by the then District Collector, while passing the order of rejection on 01.10.2020.
27.Admittedly, the application was submitted by the fourth respondent. The same was rejected by the Tahsildar. That order was challenged in a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was allowed at the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 admission stage holding that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction and the matter was remanded to the District Collector. When the fourth respondent placed the submission before the District Collector, which was considered, a speaking order has been passed on 01.10.2020 and therefore, the fourth respondent cannot be heard to say that she was not heard in the matter.
28.It is settled legal position that opportunity of hearing does not always mean opportunity of personal hearing. In any event, there is no rule or regulation providing for such an opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent, when at her instance, the matter was remanded to the District Collector. There is no observation made by the learned Writ Court to grant any such opportunity. Therefore, the fourth respondent cannot plead that the order dated 01.10.2020 was in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, such argument is rejected.
29.This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Gas Authority of India Limited is unable to lay pipes for providing piped gas supply to the residential homes. One of us (TSSJ) was a party to an order passed in a Public Interest Litigation, where objections were raised both from the Public as well as from the Officials and the matter had to be remanded to the Government for holding discussion and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 it appears that there was a second round of litigation and from what we know, till date piped gas supply has not become a reality in the State of Tamil Nadu, though it has been substantially implemented in the neighbouring States. Therefore, it is virtually next impossible for a private party. Rather surprisingly and shockingly within less than 15 days, the entire District Administration of Karur District had packed up all their other files and devoted their entire attention to the cause of the fourth respondent which is a private cause with no public interest involved and therefore, the exercise of power is arbitrary and illegal.
30.Furthermore, we find that the existence as many as seven bore-Wells in the land which is situated in the other Village has not been disputed and this aspect has been glossed over by the District Collector while passing the impugned order dated 18.11.2020. In the earlier order dated 01.10.2020, the District Collector has made an observation that water has been supplied for commercial purposes from those Wells. This aspect has not been verified nor dealt with in the impugned order.
31.Further, we need to point out the very important aspect which has been mentioned in the order of rejection, dated 01.10.2020 wherein the District Collector has stated as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 “5.TlY}h; fPH;ghfk; Cuhl;rp fpuhk FoePh; kw;Wk; Rfhjhu rq;fk; rhh;ghf bghJkf;fs; gad;gLj;Jk; FoePh; fpzw;wpw;F mUfpy; th;j;jf gad;ghl;ow;fhf fpzW mikj;J kDjhuhpd; bjd;dpiy bjd;ghfk; fpuhkj;jpy; mike;Js;s epyj;jpw;F jz;zPh; bfhz;L bry;Yk; nghJ ,g;gFjpapYs;s FoePh; fpzWfs; kw;Wk; nkw;go Cuhl;rpf;F ePh; tHq;Fk; epyq;fs; Mfpatw;wpy; epyj;jo ePh; kl;lk; Fiwe;J ,g;gFjp kf;fs; FoePUf;F mtjpg;gLk; NH;epiy Vw;gLk; vd;gjhy;> kDjhuhpd; epyj;jpype;J> FHha; gjpj;J> fpzw;W ePiu ntW gFjpf;F vLj;Jr;bry;y Ml;nrgid mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
6.TlYh; fpHf;F Cuhl;rp kd;w rhjhuz – mtru rpwg;g[ Tl;l jPh;khd vz;.52/2020 ehs; 22.06.2020-d;go nkw;go Cuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l gFjpapy; FoePh; gw;whf;Fiw ,Ug;gjhy;> epyj;jo ePhk; l;lj;ij ghjpf;Fk; ve;j braYf;Fk; igg; iyd;
K:ykhf mLj;j Cuhl;rpf;Fk;> jdpegh; gl;lh epyj;jpypUe;J jz;zPiu igg; iyd; K:ykhfnth thfdq;fs; K:ykhfnth vLj;J bry;y Ml;nrgiz bra;J jPh;khdk; epiwntw;wg;gl;Ls;sJ.
7.jw;nghJ kDjhuh; FHha; gjpj;J fpzw;W ePiu vLj;Jr;bry;y mDkjp nfhUk; fpzW mike;Js;s TlY}h; fpHf;F gpl; 2 fpuhkk; g[y vz;.1557/2020-y; mike;Js;s fpzW mkuhtjp Mw;wpypUe;J Rkhh; 130 kPl;lh; ,ilbtspapy; kl;Lnk mike;Js;sJ.
8.murhiz (epiy) vz;.558 tUtha; (ep.K.2(1)) Jiw> ehs; 11.06.1997-y; tha;f;fhy; K:yk; ghrdk; bgWk; epyq;fSf;F neuoahf Mw;wpypUe;njh> my;yJ Mw;wpy; ,Ue;J ePiu bgWk; gl;lh epyj;jpy; cs;s fpzw;wpypUe;njh> ePiu bfhz;L bry;tjw;fhf FHha; gjpg;gjw;F mDkjp tHq;ff;TlhJ vd mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 ..........
2.mkuhtjp Mw;wq;fiunahw gFjp ePh;tsk; kpf;fJ vd;gjhy;> mjpy; cs;s fpzw;W ePiu gad;gLj;jp bjd;dpiy bjw;F fpuhkj;jpYs;s tptrha epyq;fSf;F gad;gLj;JtJ vd;gJ murhiz (epiy) vz;.558 tUtha;j; (ep.K.2(1)) Jiw> ehs; 11.06.1997-y; tha;f;fhy; K:yk; ghrdk; bgWk; epyq;fSf;F neuoahf Mw;wpypUe;njh. my;yJ Mw;wpy; ,Ue;J ePiu bgWk; gl;lh epyj;jpy; cs;s fpzw;wpypUe;njh> epiu bfhz;L bry;tjw;fhf FHha; gjpg;gjw;F mDkjp tHq;ff;TlhJ vd;w murpd;
mwpt[iufSf;F Kw;wpYk; Kuz;ghlhf cs;sJ.
3.kDjhuh; fpzw;W ePiu FHha; gjpj;J> bfhz;L bry;yf;nfhUk; bjd;dpiy bjw;F fpuhkj;jpy; kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l epyq;fspy; Vw;fdnt 07 MH;Jis fpzWfs; njhz;lg;gl;L> mjpy; 3 MH;Jis fpzWfs; K:yk; nkw;go epyq;fs; cs;s brk;ku fd;WfSf;F brhl;L ePh; ghrdk; K:yk; ePh; gha;r;rg;gl;L tUfpwJ. ,e;epiyapy; tptrha nehf;fj;jpw;fhf 16 fp.kPl;lh; bjhiytpw;F FHha; gjpj;J fpzw;W ePiu bfhz;L bry;y ntz;oaJ mj;jpahtrpa njit ,y;yhjJ.
4.kDjhuh; mkuhtjp Mw;wq;fiuapd; 130 kPl;lh;
bjhiytpy; cs;s ePh;tsk; kpf;f fpzw;Wld; Toa epyj;ij fpiuak; bgw;W mjpy; cs;s fpzw;wpw;F kpd; ,izg;g[ bgw muR tpjpfspy; ,lkpy;yhj NH;epiyapy; ,e;j fpzw;wpYs;s jz;zPiu bfhz;L brd;W bjd;dpiy bjw;F fpuhkj;jpy;> kpd; ,izg;g[ld; Toa fpzw;wpy; brYj;jp gad;gLj;j tha;g;g[s;sJ.
5.TlYh; fPH;ghfk; Cuhl;rp fpuhk FoePh; kw;Wk;
Rfhjhu rq;fk; rhh;ghft[k;> TlYhh; fpHf;F Cuhl;rp kd;wj;jpd; K:ykhft[k;> Vw;fdnt Cuhl;rpapy; FoePh; jl;Lg;ghL epyt[tjhy; nkw;go Cuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l jdpegh; gl;lh epyj;jpypUe;J ePiu ntW https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 Cuhl;rpf;nfh ntW fpuhkj;jpw;nfh bfhz;L bry;y Ml;nrgid bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
6.xU jdpeghpd; nehf;fj;jpw;fhf Rkhh; 16 fpnyh kPl;lh; bjhiytpyhd muR g[wk;nghf;F epyq;fs; kw;Wk; fpuhk ghijfis njhz;o FHha; gjpj;J fpzw;W ePiu bfhz;L bry;tJ vd;gJ bghJkf;fs; eyDf;Fk;> ,ju muR Jiw epWtdq;fspd;
jpl;lq;fSf;Fk; ,ila{whf mika[k;.” A reading of the above would indicate that there is already a water shortage in the particular Village Panchayat and therefore, there it is impermissible to draw water from this Village to another Village for a private person, namely, the fourth respondent that too for watering 11,000 Rosewood trees. This aspect has also been brushed aside by the subsequent incumbent District Collector. To say the least, the District Collector has catered to the luxury of the fourth respondent when the Villagers are reeling under water shortage.
32.The District Collector in her status report dated 11.01.2021, has stated that in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.161, Public Works (R2) Department dated 23.10.2019, Chinnadharapuram Firka of Aravakurichi Taluk has been categorized as semi-critical Zone, yet in terms of G.O. (Ms).No.142, Public Works (R2) Department dated 23.07.2014 drawal and transportation of ground water for agricultural and horticultural purposes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 have been exempted from obtaining No-Objection Certificate. We have held that the Rosewood tree Farm developed by the fourth respondent planting 11,000 trees would not fall within the ambit of agricultural purpose. As per the categorization done by the Government in G.O(Ms).No.161, Chinnadharapuram Firka in Aravakurichi Taluk where the subject land is situated, is a semi-critical zone, hence grant of permission for drawal of water to be transported through pipeline for catering to a Rosewood Farm could not have been permitted.
33.The petitioner has referred to another incident where a pipeline has been permitted to be drawn for a private company who is running a hactery. The said order is not under challenge before us. But, in any event, any permission which was granted earlier if it is without jurisdiction, a wrong or an illegal order cannot be treated as a precedent.
34.One more aspect which has drawn our attention is the manner in which the District Collector has defended this litigation. Very often, the learned Government Counsels will take repeated adjournments before this Court for the purpose of filing counter-affidavit and in this case, the District Collector has taken much attention and she has promptly filed a status report on 11.01.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
35.In the recent past, this Court has not seen the Revenue Administration to be so prompt in defending a litigation which poses a great question mark as to why this extra ordinary interest in favour of the fourth respondent. Thus, we are of the clear view that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable, it is a clear abuse and misuse of power vested with the authority, totally devoid of jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
36.In the light of the above reasoning, we hold that:-
(i) The District Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, the same is arbitrary and illegal.
(ii) Permission for drawal and transportation of water from a Well situate in close proximately to River Amaravathi cannot be granted for the purpose mentioned by the fourth respondent and could not have been granted.
(iii) The purpose for which permission was sought for drawal and transportation of water to a distance of about 13/16 Kms along a public road cannot be termed as agricultural or bonafide agricultural purpose. Consequently, G.O(Ms)No.202, dated 24.04.2000 and G.O(Ms)No.142, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 24/28 W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020 dated 23.07.2014 cannot be applied to the case of the fourth respondent.
(iv) The impugned order is vitiated on the ground of arbitrariness and malafide exercise of power by the District Collector for reasons best known.
37.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the remaining pipeline which is stated to be an extent of two (2) kilometers and the proper earth filling has to be done and if the entire cost had been incurred from the Government Revenue, then the entire amount shall be recovered from the fourth respondent. This direction shall be complied with within a period of ten (10) days from today. No costs.
[T.S.S., J] [S.A.I., J]
09.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps/ssb/tta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
25/28
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
Note :
i) Issue Order Copy on
17.06.2021.
ii) In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
26/28
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
To
1.The District Collector,
Karur District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Karur District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
WRO, Ground Water Division,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
27/28
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
and
S.ANANTHI,J.
ps/ssb/tta
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.19590 of 2020
09.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
28/28