Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondent from in any manner interfering with the accustomed supply of water to the lands of ayacutdars in Pullambakkam and Madur Peria Eri from Kadapperi through the channel marked as EFGH in the Commissioners plan, in O.S.No.3 of 1984, on the file of the District Munsifs court, Chegalpattu. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioners are owning lands in Madur and Pullambakkam villages. The lands of the ayacutdars in the said villages are being irrigated from Pullambakkam Peria Eri and Madur Eri. While so, some ayacutdars of Tirumukkudal village were attempting to interfere with the flow of water to Pullambakkam and Madur Eris, by digging up a channel leading from Kadapperi to Pullambakkam Eri. Therefore, civil suits had been filed on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu, praying for a decree of permanent injunction, in O.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 1984, restraining the defendants therein and their men from in any way interfering with the accustomed right of the ayacutdars of Madur and Pullambakkam villages. The said suits had been dismissed by a judgment and decree, dated 9. 90. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, first appeals in A.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 1991, had been filed before the District Court, Chengalpattu. The said appeals had been allowed against the defendants 2 to 5 in the suits, by a judgment and decree, dated 9. 91. Thus, the said defendants, who are the ayacutdars of Tirumukkudal village were restrained from in any way interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit from using the waters of Pullambakkam and Madur Eris. However, no injunction had been granted against the State Goverment which was the first defendant therein. The said decree had become final as no appeals had been filed against the judgment and decree granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in the suits. However, since the respondent herein is duty bound to maintain the accustomed supply of water to the lands of the ayacutdars in Pullambakkam and Madur villages from the Pullambakkam and Madur Peria Eris the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, since the respondent herein is duty bound to maintain the accustomed supply of water to the lands of the ayacutdars in Pullambakkam and Madur villages from the Pullambakkam and Madur Peria Eris the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted, based on the communication, dated 210. 2008, received by her from the executive engineer, WRD., (PWD), Lower Palar Basin Division, Kanchipuram, that there is no proposal for maintaining the supply channel from Kadapperi Tank to Pullambakkam and Madur tanks by the Public Works Department, District Development authority. No other proposal has been made by the Government to form a new separate supply channel from Kadapperi Tank to Tirumukkudal tank. Further, there is no proposal for desilting the channel from Pullambakkam Tank `V Notch to Tirumukkudal tank. It has also been submitted that the channel from Pullambakkam `V Notch to Tirumukkudal tank, which is called as EFGH channel, for which maintenance work was not done by the Public Works Department for the past five years. In future, if any necessity arises, the EFGH channel would be desilted without affecting the rights of Pullambakkam and Madur tank Ayacutdars. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.