Judgment :- Though the injunction petition and the vacate injunction petition are listed, by consent of the respective learned counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. In G.O.Ms.No.248, Industries Department dated 27.10.95, the Government directed the acquisition of an extent of 593.14.0 hectares of patta lands, as requested by the The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT) for establishment of an industrial complex. In the midst of the poramboke lands to an extent of 151.50.5 hectares in Irungattukkottai, Kaatrambakkam and Thandalam villages, a water course also exists on the said poramboke lands for free flow of water whenever the Thandalam lake overflows during heavy rain and such water reaches the Appalam lake. The third respondent was allotted an extent of 8.6 acres of land by SIPCOT on 22.8.2003 for establishment of a manufacturing unit. A portion of the land also includes the land on which the water used to flow from Thandalam lake to Appalam lake during rainy season. The writ petitioner is an engineering college established on the northern side of the lands allotted to SIPCOT. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the SIPCOT to strictly implement the Government Order permitting them to enter into the poramboke lands in question on the ground that the third respondent, being the allottee of a portion of the land by the SIPCOT, is putting up construction by diverting the water course and in view of such act of the third respondent, there is every likelihood of endanger to the compound wall put up by the petitioner on the southern side of the college premises. 4. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when the SIPCOT was permitted to enter into the poramboke lands in question, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.891, Revenue Department dated 26.9.97 imposed a specific condition that the water course should be maintained in its original condition and having obtained such permission, it is not open to either the SIPCOT or its allottee to realign the water course. He would also submit that by such diversion of the water course, there is every likelihood of endanger to the compound wall put up by the petitioner college. 5. He would also submit that by such diversion of the water course, there is every likelihood of endanger to the compound wall put up by the petitioner college. 5. Mr.P.S.Seetharaman, learned counsel appearing for the SIPCOT, on the other hand, would contend that when the lands were allotted to SIPCOT, there was no separate water course in the midst of the poramboke lands except during rainy season the overflow water runs through the land and reaches the Appalam lake. The petitioner having made representations to the SIPCOT while the third respondent sought to put up the drain by diverting the water only to ensure that the compound wall of the petitioner college is not affected. Having taken such a stand, it is not now open to the petitioner to question the action of the third respondent in putting up the drain for free flow of water from Thandalam lake to Appalam lake. The learned counsel also relied upon an order of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department dated 22.6.2004 in granting permission for such diversion of water. 6. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing for the third respondent would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the petitioner is an encroacher of the lands allotted to the SIPCOT. The writ petition has been filed only on mere apprehension and, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. None of the ayacutdars have objected to the construction of a drain except the petitioner, who being an encroacher, only on the assumption that in the event the drain is constructed, there is every likelihood of endanger to the compound wall put up by the petitioner. In fact, the learned Advocate General submitted that sufficient safeguards would be made while putting up the construction of drain adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner to ensure that there is no danger to the compound wall when the water flows through the drain. He would further submit that the said statement could be recorded. The learned Advocate General also submitted that as long as the water which overflows from Thandalam lake is not diverted to any other place except to the Appalam lake, the petitioner cannot question the diversion. 7. In reply, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions stipulated in the Government Order cannot be either modified or altered by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. 7. In reply, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions stipulated in the Government Order cannot be either modified or altered by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. Hence, the permission accorded by the Chief Engineer on 22.6.2004 cannot be taken into consideration. 8. For the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, G.O.Ms.No.891 dated 26.9.97 needs a reference. As an extent of 593.14.0 hectares of land was acquired for allotment to the SIPCOT in G.O.Ms.No.248, Industries Department dated 27.10.95, it came to light that an extent of 151.50.5 hectares of poramboke land falls in the midst of the acquired land within the survey numbers of Irungattukottai, Kaatrambakkam and Thandalam villages. There is no dispute that during rainy season when the Thandalam lake overflows, the said water runs through the said poramboke land and reaches the Appalam lake. There is a restriction for granting permission to enter into the vaikkal-odai poramboke land and, therefore, the matter was considered by the Government for grant of exemption to SIPCOT, as the said land and vaikkal-odai lies in between the lands acquired for the establishment of an industrial complex by SIPCOT. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.891, Revenue Department dated 26.9.97. A reading of the said Government Order shows that though a proposal was placed before the Government not only for granting permission to enter as the land is a water course poramboke, but also the SIPCOT should maintain the water course in its condition. The directions of the Government are relevant and the same reads as under:- Insofar as the direction given in first paragraph, the Government has accorded permission for the SIPCOT to enter into the said poramboke land. Insofar as the direction given in second paragraph, the Government has granted exemption to the condition that no water course lands should be allowed to be used by others. This is only an exemption. In paragraph 3, the Government has directed that the permission shall be subject to the Government orders. Except the above directions, I do not find any specific direction in the said Government Order as to the water course. 9. With the above directions in mind, the plea of the petitioner should be considered. This is only an exemption. In paragraph 3, the Government has directed that the permission shall be subject to the Government orders. Except the above directions, I do not find any specific direction in the said Government Order as to the water course. 9. With the above directions in mind, the plea of the petitioner should be considered. There is no dispute that the third respondent was allotted an extent of 8.69 acres of land for putting up a manufacturing unit and in a portion of southern side of the said land the overflow water from Thandalam lake passes to reach the Appalam lake. As the allotted land could not be put to full use, the third respondent has started constructing a new drain to enable the overflow water to reach the Appalam lake, which resulted in diversion of the water course. The petitioner has made representations on 6.2.2004 and 5.3.2004 to the Chairman, SIPCOT complaining about the construction. He has specifically raised only the following points:- "1. New canal construction has been started very close to our boundary whereas old canal exists about 15-20 feet away from our fencing. Quantum of water flow is to be arrived considering water outflow at maximum flood level of the tank, as notified by the Government Irrigation Department, the upstream catchments of the lake and its outflow and the cross section, size of the canal and its structure should be designed suitably. 2. The area in this side of the fencing is purely residential with Boy's Hostel, Staff Quarters and Ladies Hostel being located. Any improper location/design of the canal will result in the damage not only to the buildings located in the area but also to human lives. Hence cross section of the canal should be trapezoidal and to be designed with these parameters taken provided for. 3. This side canal design should be approved by all concerned to avoid future misunderstanding/hiccups namely Thandalam Panchayat, SIPCOT, REC and other land-owners on both sides. 4. The minimum distance of the canal wall (REC side) on surface should be of 6 ft. from the boundary, to be provided. 5. 3. This side canal design should be approved by all concerned to avoid future misunderstanding/hiccups namely Thandalam Panchayat, SIPCOT, REC and other land-owners on both sides. 4. The minimum distance of the canal wall (REC side) on surface should be of 6 ft. from the boundary, to be provided. 5. Canal construction to be continued beyond REC site and other landowners' site upto SIPCOT land end, it should be properly connected to the lake, from where water flows out through canal to Sembarambakkam lake." A reading of the said representation shows that the petitioner had no grievance over the real diversion of the water course, but by such diversion, there should not be any damage to the buildings located in the college area. Of course in the representation dated 5.3.2004 the petitioner has also indicated that the diversion of water course is contrary to the conditions of the Government. 10. As already noted, in the Government Order, there is no condition preventing the SIPCOT from diverting the water course though it was recommended before the Government to pass orders. Nevertheless, my attention is drawn to certain communications between the SIPCOT and the revenue officials. On 1.4.2004, the SIPCOT had addressed to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, W.R.O., Chepauk seeking permission for realigning the existing earthen drain (odai) to the end of S.F.Nos.147/1 and 147/2 in order to utilise the maximum area of allottable land. The SIPCOT also undertook to maintain the bed levels of the original and realigned drain (odai) at the same level so as to maintain the free flow of water and the realigned drain will be constructed with RCC side wall. A similar request was made to the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk on 1.4.2004. The request of the SIPCOT was considered by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, who by his proceedings dated 8.6.2004 recommended the request of the SIPCOT for diversion of water course to the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer, by his proceedings dated 21.6.2004, had recommended to the Chief Engineer for such diversion. The Chief Engineer, by his Letter No.T5(3)/6601/2004 dated 22.6.2004 granted such permission. The said order reads as under:- Sub: SIPCOT Industrial Park-Irungattukottai-S.F.No.147/1 and 147/2 of Thandalam Village Poramboke land alienated to SIPCOT-re-alignment of earthen dran (Odai)-Thandalam Tank surplus course-Permission accorded. Ref: 1) G.O.Ms.No.891/Rev./Dept. dt. 26.9.1997. 2)Senior Project Manager, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Lr.No.P.O./IRU/LA/HL/2004/ dt. 1.4.2004. The Chief Engineer, by his Letter No.T5(3)/6601/2004 dated 22.6.2004 granted such permission. The said order reads as under:- Sub: SIPCOT Industrial Park-Irungattukottai-S.F.No.147/1 and 147/2 of Thandalam Village Poramboke land alienated to SIPCOT-re-alignment of earthen dran (Odai)-Thandalam Tank surplus course-Permission accorded. Ref: 1) G.O.Ms.No.891/Rev./Dept. dt. 26.9.1997. 2)Senior Project Manager, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Lr.No.P.O./IRU/LA/HL/2004/ dt. 1.4.2004. 3) Superintending Engineer, Palar Basin Circle, Lr.No.956/DO1/DB/2004/238 CE/Dt. 21.6.2004. In the G.O.1st cited above, the Government have alienated certain Government Poramboke lands measuring totally 151.50.5 Ha. to SIPCOT for developing an Industrial Park at Irungattukottai with the conditions that the water courses should be maintained as per records. 2) In the reference 2nd cited, the Senior Project Manager, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai has sent proposal for realignment of the Thandalam Tank Surplus course running in S.No.147/1 of Thandalam Village, since the channel is in the plot allotted to a company. It has been reported that the SIPCOT will provide a new masonry drainage with RCC walls keeping the bed levels as that of the existing channel. The new alignment is in the northern boundary of this survey number. 3. In the reference 3rd cited, the Superintending Engineer, Palar Basin Circle, Chennai-5 has recommended for according permission to SIPCOT to construct a new masonry drainage of the northern boundary in S.No.147 of Thandalam Village as per the drawings furnished by SIPCOT. 4. Accordingly, permission is hereby granted for the realignment of the Thandalam Tank surplus course with masonry structures of RCC wall and bed as per the drawings furnished by SIPCOT with the conditions that the work should be executed under intimation to the Executive Engineer, PWD, WRO, Lower Palar Basin Division, Kancheepuram and should be executed as directed by the Departmental officers of Public Works Department. 11. As far as the submission of Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel as to the letter of the Chief Engineer in granting permission is contrary to the direction of the Government, it must be noted that there is no such condition imposed in the Government Order as indicated earlier. In the circumstances, the Chief Engineer is entitled to consider as to whether the water course could be diverted by safeguarding the free flow of water as well the bed level and the realigned drain (odai) are maintained at the same level. There is yet another aspect. In the circumstances, the Chief Engineer is entitled to consider as to whether the water course could be diverted by safeguarding the free flow of water as well the bed level and the realigned drain (odai) are maintained at the same level. There is yet another aspect. Though it is questioned that the diversion is contrary to the Government Order, it must be noticed that except the petitioner, none of the ayacutdars have raised any objection for such diversion of the water course. The objection of the petitioner is basically on the ground that by such diversion the building of the petitioner adjacent to the drain may be damaged. In this context, it is relevant to point out that the drain is put up by maintaining the bed level of the original as well the realigned drain at the same level and the realigned drain is constructed with RCC side wall. In fact the learned Advocate General undertook to provide additional safety measures by putting up construction along with the compound wall of the petitioner to ensure that the buildings belonging to the petitioner located adjacent to the drain are not damaged. When such an assurance is given, the apprehension of the petitioner to that extent cannot be a ground for maintaining the writ petition. Moreover, the right of the petitioner is not by way of public interest litigation, but purely on a personal grievance i.e., diversion of water course would damage the building and if that apprehension is removed, the construction of the drain would not in any way affect the buildings belonging to the petitioner located adjacent to the drain by providing sufficient safeguards. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the application for permission itself has been made after this Court had granted interim injunction on 11.3.2004 and, therefore, the third respondent is not bona fide in defending the case. Though it is seen that the injunction order was granted on 11.3.2004 and was extended subsequently on 26.3.2004, the request was made only on 1.4.2004. As on today, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department has given permission for realignment of the drain and the said fact has been placed on record. Merely because an application was made after the injunction order was granted, that will not invalidate the order of the Chief Engineer in granting permission. As on today, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department has given permission for realignment of the drain and the said fact has been placed on record. Merely because an application was made after the injunction order was granted, that will not invalidate the order of the Chief Engineer in granting permission. It must be also noted that the said order is in force as on today. 12. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the first and second respondents shall ensure that the third respondent while constructing the new drain does not alter the bed level of the realigned drain (odai) for the free flow of water and the realigned drain is constructed with RCC side wall and with sufficient safeguards so that no damage is caused to the buildings of the petitioner located adjacent to the new drain. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.6987 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.1120 of 2004 are closed.