Madras High Court
C.V.Ponniah vs The Secretary To Government on 28 November, 2012
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/11/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.3615 of 2006 and W.P.MD(MD)No.3869 of 2006 C.V.Ponniah ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Chief Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyaru Main Channel, Madurai District. 4.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Madurai West Block, Madurai. 5.The President, Vellichinatham Panchayat, Madurai West Block, Madurai. [R4 & R5 impleaded as party respondents vide order, dated 30.03.3011 in M.P.No.1/2011] ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue orders to respondents 2 and 3 to restore the irrigation to the petitioner's ayacut lands in S.F.No.87/1 in 87/5, Chinnapatti Village, by restoring the obliterated portion of irrigation channel in S.F.No.84, connecting S.F.No.87/1 to 5 Chinnapatti Village, Melur Division, Madurai North, Madurai District, by fixing field bothie and pipe across the Odai. !For Petitioner... Mr.P.Jayaprakash Narayan ^For R1 to 3 ... Mr.R.Anandaraj Government Advocate For R4 and R5 ... No appearance :ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents for restoration of the irrigation to the petitioner's ayacut lands in S.F.No.87/1 in 87/5, Chinnapatti Village, by restoring the obliterated portion of irrigation channel in S.F.No.84, connecting S.F.No.87/1 to 5 Chinnapatti Village, Melur Division, Madurai North, by fixing field bothie and pipe across the Odai.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his brother own lands at S.F.No.87/1 to 87/5 at Chinnapati Village, by deriving water for irrigation through the 6th Branch Channel in Sluice No.3 Right. The names of entire Ayacutdars, who have been drawing water through the said sluice, have been gazetted from the year 1984 and the petitioner's family name was also shown as one of the ayacutdars in the Gazette Notification. The storm and rain water collected and carried through an Odai north of Meenakshipuram Peria Kanmai as well as the water that branches from the Periyar Main Canal are stored in Meenakshipuram Peria Kanmai. The said Odai is under the control of the Panchayat Union. The petitioner's lands are irrigated only through the irrigation Channel, that branches from Periyar Main Channel through sluices known as 3R of VI B.C. The said branch Channel has been in existence from time immemorial and the lands are cultivated through the water derived from Channel. During the year 2002, the Madurai West Panchayat Union desilted the Odai and in that process, the Channel that was running upto his land was obliterated and thereby, the flow of water to the petitioner's land was curtailed. Therefore, he presented a petition before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai on 14.11.2002, who deputed the Tashildar to inspect the spot. It was found that there were traces of the existence of the course of water line called 'Thoombu' for the petitioner's land. Thus, a report was filed by the Tashildar to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and based on the report, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai directed the petitioner to approach the Public Works Department for redressal of his grievance. Hence, the petitioner presented a petition on 23.12.2002 to the 3rd respondent for re-canalising the obliterated Channel for the purpose of irrigating his land. The 3rd respondent, after verifying the records, informed the petitioner that his lands were receiving water from the 6th Channel III sluice, branching from Periyar Main Channel and the said fact had also been gazetted in the year 1984 itself. He, the 3rd respondent, also informed the petitioner that he is entitled to take water from the said source for irrigation. Thereafter, the petitioner based on the above letter issued by the 3rd respondent, requested him to rectify the obliteration. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent, through his reply, dated 08.05.2003 informed the petitioner that it is only the Panchayat Union had desilted and deepened the Kanmai and the PWD officials have got nothing to do with the same. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 31.08.2004 seeking his intervention in this matter. As the same was not considered, the present writ petition is filed before this court.
3.The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that VI Branch Channel is a Major Channel coming under Periyar Main Canal, which is having an ayacut of 1124.93 acres of direct ayacut and 1149.30 acres of indirect ayacut and the land mentioned in the writ petition is one among them. The 3rd respondent accepted the contention raised by the petitioner that the petitioner's land was being irrigated through field bothie Channel of 3 R sluice. However, in so far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to the desiltation of the Odai and obliteration of the Channel is concerned, it is stated by the 3rd respondent that PWD had not undertaken the said work and the petitioner had also not produced any material evidence to prove that the Odai in question was desilted by the Chinnapatti Panchayat Union.
4.The petitioner impleaded the Block Development Officer, Madurai West Block and the President of Vellichinatham Panchayat Madurai West Block, as party respondents 4 and 5 in this writ petition. Even after impleading themselves as party respondents, they have not chosen to file any counter affidavit before this court so far.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 is also not present both on the earlier occasion, when the matter was listed on 26.11.2012 as well as to day. Therefore, this court has got no other go, except to consider the matter based on the affidavit filed in support of the writ the petition as well as the counter of the 3rd respondent.
6.It is the case of the petitioner that Chinnapatti Panchayat Union had desilted the Odai and also obliterated the Channel. If that be the position, the 2nd respondent is to necessarily look into this matter and after making appropriate enquiry, he has to pass necessary order on the petitioner's representation, dated 31.08.2004.
7.It is seen that the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent also accepted the claim of the petitioner for drawing water through the Channel, which came to be obliterated in pursuant to the desiltation of the Odai. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders have to be passed, on his representation.
8.As the respondents 4 and 5, though impleaded have not placed any material before this court to deny the claim of the petitioner, I only direct the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, based on his representation, dated 31.08.2004 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
er
1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Chief Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyaru Main Channel, Madurai District.
4.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.