Judgment :- A.R. LAKSHAMANAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Association represented by its Secretary has filed the above writ petition for the following relief. To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction of like nature, calling for the records from the 3rd respondents relating to the impugned resolution Item No. 11 dated 26-6-1989 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the park area in the approved layout to the petitioner association for development as park. ( 2 ) THE short facts are as follows : The plot owners and residents of V. G. P. Golden Sea View Layout Parts I, II and III in Palavakkam Village are members of the petitioner association. The V. G. P. Investments prepared a layout for 303 house sites in Survey Nos. l/la, 2a in Palavakkam Village, 142 Saidapet Taluk, Chengai M. G. R. District. The said lay out Parts I, II and III was approved under D. D. T. P. No. 2/75 D. D. T. C. No. 31/75 and D. D. T. P. No. 13/75. In the said approved plans, a total area of 20 grounds and 1068 Sq. ft. was reserved as park area exclusively for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the area. In fact, V. G. P. Investments by two gift deeds dated 25-4-1981 transferred the said park area of 20 grounds and 1068 Sq. ft. and the area meant for road purposes to St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union/6th respondent. Thus, the said area is transferred to the 6th respondent in order to develop roads and park in that layout Parts I, II, and III. The members of the petitioner Association purchased plots in that layout and put up houses and for drinking water, the members opened wells, in their respective plots. ( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent in its meeting held on 26-6-1989 appears to have passed a resolution to supply water from Palavakkam Panchayat Union area to Perungudi Panchayat/4th respondent. The said resolution was passed totally against the interests of the residents of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The members of the petitioner Association were not aware of the said resolution and they were not even informed. The said resolution was passed totally against the interests of the residents of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The members of the petitioner Association were not aware of the said resolution and they were not even informed. On the basis of the said resolution the 3rd respondent took steps to dig well in the area earmarked for park in V. G. P. Golden Sea view Layout contrary to the rules and regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and without consulting the local residents or the petitioner Association. The petitioner association protested against the action of the Panchayat to dig well in the park area meant for park. General Body meeting of the petitioner association was convened on 6-8-1989 and the then President of the 3rd respondent Panchayat was invited. In the meeting, the members complained to the President about the unending illegal exploitation of ground water in Palavakkam Panchayat, and due to the exploitation of ground water, water level in all their wells had gone down considerably and the sweet water had started turning saline. The members then demanded the purpose of well dug in the park area, which will be the only wing space available when all the plots are built. Again, the petitioner Association by its letter dated 9-8-89 brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 3 by enclosing the layout plan, that the wells are dug in park areas only. The 3rd respondent commenced full work to sell and supply water to the 4th respondent and the petitioner Association again by its letter dated 28-8-1989 lodged its objections and requested the respondents to interfere. The petitioner association again on 3-10-1989 requested the 4th respondent to interfere and take action against the 3rd respondent. Another representation dated 27-10-1989 was sent to the 1st respondent. The petitioner also submitted a memorandum to the 6th respondent seeking permission to adopt the park area for development and maintenance. The 6th respondent by letter dated 20-11-1989 informed the petitioner that the park area was handed over to the 3rd respondent and water is supplied to the other Panchayat due to drought season. The petitioner on 11-2-1990 also brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 about the newspaper reports and also requested the 3rd respondent to remove the shed and other materials kept in the park area. The petitioner on 11-2-1990 also brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 about the newspaper reports and also requested the 3rd respondent to remove the shed and other materials kept in the park area. ( 4 ) THE petitioner Association made various representations to the respondents on 11-4-1990, 25-4-1990, 18-3-1991, 15-4-1991, 27-3-1991 and 26-6-1992 requesting them to interfere and remove the shed in the park area and also stop in tapping water and supply the same by pipe to other Panchayat from the park area. The 2nd respondent by his letter dated 25-7-1991 directed the 6th respondent to take steps to remove the shed in the park area. The 5th respondent issued notice dated 21-8-1991 to the concerned persons to remove the shed from the park area. Neither the shed was removed nor the wells were closed in the park area. It is submitted that in spite of various representations, the shed put up in the park is not removed and further, the tapping of water from three wells in the park area and supplying the same through pipe line to Perungudi was not stopped. According to the Writ Petitioner, the impugned resolution, Item No. 11 dated 26-6-1989 passed by the 3rd respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and hence, the same is liable to be quashed on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. ( 5 ) ALONG with the Writ Petition, the petitioner Association filed W. M. P. No. 14332 of 1992 for interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from tapping water from park area and supplying the same to the 4th respondent Panchayat and/or industries, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 23-7-1992 and interim injunction as prayed for was granted on the same date. To vacate the interim injunction granted by this Court, the Perungudi Panchayat/4th respondent has filed W. M. P. No. 17452/92. ( 6 ) THE main contention on behalf of the 4th respondent is that as per the resolution passed by respondents 3 and 4, the 4th respondent sent a proposal to the 6th respondent/st. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union at Chittalapakkam, for the execution of the above resolution. ( 6 ) THE main contention on behalf of the 4th respondent is that as per the resolution passed by respondents 3 and 4, the 4th respondent sent a proposal to the 6th respondent/st. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union at Chittalapakkam, for the execution of the above resolution. The proposal was approved by the 6th respondent and forwarded to the 2nd respondent/divisional Development Officer, Saidapet Division, and the 1st respondent/collector of Chengai M. G. R. District. They approved the same and ordered the 6th respondent to execute the above work through departmental work under the Rural Water Supply Scheme 1989-90 and 1990-9l, and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,97,500/- for the above work by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 10-8-1989 and permitted the 4th respondent to meet out the expense from the 4th respondent Panchayat funds to purchase a motor and construction of pump shed. The sanction was accorded by respondents 1 and 2 and the work was completed on 10-12-1989. The operation of water supply started on 11-12-1989 from Palavakkam Panchayat to Perungudi Kandanchavadi Panchayat inhabitants till 4-8-1992 without any interference or interruption from anybody. The resolution of respondents 3 and 4 is not against law. The authorities are empowered to use the Government Property for the betterment and good cause of the public. The Panchayat President has initiated action for water supply only for the betterment of the public and interfering with such a function may only expose the selfish attitude of the petitioner. The Panchayat President has acted in Coordination with the District Collector, who has administrative powers over all the panchayats under his jurisdiction -vide Sections 145 and 146 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958. The District Collector thus has power to satisfy the needs of drinking water of a particular Panchayat under his jurisdiction from another Panchayat under his jurisdiction. The 3rd respondent permitting the 4th respondent to take drinking water to its inhabitants is not usual considering the fact that the water for Madras City is supplied from Sholavaram Reservoir, Poondi Reservoir and Red Hills Reservoir. The water for Madras City is supplied from the deep bore wells at Ponneri and Pancheti when the reservoir is having a very low water level. Hence it is, essential for the 3rd respondent to permit the 4th respondent to take water from the 3rd respondent Panchayat to the 4th respondent Panchayat inhabitants. The water for Madras City is supplied from the deep bore wells at Ponneri and Pancheti when the reservoir is having a very low water level. Hence it is, essential for the 3rd respondent to permit the 4th respondent to take water from the 3rd respondent Panchayat to the 4th respondent Panchayat inhabitants. ( 7 ) THE 3rd respondent has adopted the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent viz. , the St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union has filed a counter-affidavit supporting and adopting the stand taken by the other respondents. The Writ Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations contained in the counter-affidavits filed by the respective respondents. ( 8 ) I have heard Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner Association and Mr. P. Shanmugam learned Additional Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents. ( 9 ) AS stated above, by order dated 23-7-1992, my learned Brother S. Govindasamy J. , was pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from tapping of water from park area and supplying the same to the 4th respondent Panchayat and to the industries pending the Writ Petition. The 4th respondent has filed a petition W. M. P. No. 17452/92 to vacate the Injunction. ( 10 ) THE principal grievance of the petitioner is that the area from which the water is being taken by the 3rd respondent and supplying to the 4th respondent panchayat is reserved as a park area in the plan approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning. I have also perused the plan and I am satisfied that this area is ear-marked for park, which is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. There is no denial of the fact that the approved plan is for 303 house sites. When the petitioner complained to the M. M. D. A. authorities, the 3rd respondent appears to have sent a reply to the M. M. D. A. that water is being tapped from the park area to solve the drinking water problem of the residents of Palavakkam Panchayat. The Member Secretary of the M. M. D. A. has intimated the petitioner on 10-1-1990 about the reply received from the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent in its counter-affidavit filed in support of the petition for vacating the interim injunction, had admitted that 10 grounds and 534 Sq. ft. The Member Secretary of the M. M. D. A. has intimated the petitioner on 10-1-1990 about the reply received from the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent in its counter-affidavit filed in support of the petition for vacating the interim injunction, had admitted that 10 grounds and 534 Sq. ft. has been handed over by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent for providing a park as required by the rules and regulations under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. This position has also been admitted by the 6th respondent. So far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, it has filed a counter adopting the counter filed by the 6th respondent. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the site has been handed over to the 3rd respondent for maintaining it as a park as per the approved plan. Maintenance of park is necessary for the welfare of the residents of the locality and to maintain healthy surrounding and atmosphere. ( 11 ) IT is claimed by the contesting respondents that a resolution has been passed on 26-4-1989 by the 4th respondent requesting the 3rd respondent to provide suitable place for digging a well and permitting the 4th respondent to lay pipe line from Palavakkam to Perungudi Panchayat Kandanchavadi for taking drinking water to the inhabitants of the 4th respondent Panchayat, and the same was approved by the 3rd respondent on 30-6-1989. What is stated in the counter-affidavit is not in keeping with what the 3rd respondent told the Member Secretary of the M. M. D. A. , as referred to above. When once it is admitted that the site in question is ear-marked for maintaining as a park, it is obligatory on the part of the 3rd respondent to maintain a park as approved by the M. M. D. A. Therefore I am prima facie satisfied that the area, which has been handed over to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner Association has to be maintained only as a park and cannot be put to any other use. ( 12 ) IT is contended by Mr. P. Shanmugham, learned Addl. Govt. ( 12 ) IT is contended by Mr. P. Shanmugham, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, that the 3rd respondent was justified in permitting the 4th respondent to take drinking water considering the fact that water for Madras City is supplied from Sholavaram, Poondi and Red Hills Reservoirs and also from deep bore wells in Ponneri and Panchati when the water level in the above reservoirs got depleted. I am unable to accept the comparison. First of all, reservoirs in the above places cannot be equated to an area admittedly reserved for park. It is open to respondents 3 and 4 to have reservoirs and areas belonging to their Panchayats. Though the supply of water by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent serves a public purpose, yet, it is the duty of each panchayat to make provision for drinking water facility to its residents and in any event, the 3rd respondent cannot permit the 4th respondent to take water from park area, which is at the cost of the members of the petitioner association who are living in that area. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to my opinion, the 4th respondent should make its own arrangement for supplying water to its residents and should take necessary steps to find a permanent solution to the alleged drinking water problem of the residents of the 4th respondent Panchayat. It cannot depend permanently on the 3rd respondent and that too tapping water from an area reserved for a public purpose. ( 14 ) PANCHAYAT, like any other citizen, has got a duty to abide by rules and regulations. It cannot violate law. If an individual citizen cannot tap water from a park area, equally, the Panchayat also cannot be allowed to do so. It is equally the duty of the 3rd respondent to ensure that the members of the petitioner association who are residents of the locality, are not adversely affected by the unscientific tapping of water from park area. ( 15 ) HENCE, I direct the 4th respondent Panchayat to make its own arrangement on a permanent basis, if necessary by approaching the State Government, for necessary financial aid to solve the drinking water problem of its inhabitants. Since it is likely to take time, I feel it necessary to pass the following order instead of granting injunction as prayed for. Since it is likely to take time, I feel it necessary to pass the following order instead of granting injunction as prayed for. I) The 4th respondent Panchayat will take immediate steps to shift the tapping of water from the site reserved as park area, within a period of six months from today. ii) Till then, the 4th respondent can draw water from the present site viz. the park area. iii) The 3rd respondent should provide a park as per the condition imposed at the time of grant of approval of the lay out by the Town and country Planning authorities. iv) It will be open to the parties to approach this court for appropriate further directions and v) W. M. P. Nos. 14332 and 17452 of 1992 are ordered on the above terms. Order accordingly.