Judgment This civil revision petition is filed by the first respondent/ first defendant/ first appellant/revision petitioner as against the judgment dated 01.07.2008 in C.M.A.No.6 of 2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam affirmed the fair order dated 18. 2006 in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 in O.S.No.151 of 2006 passed by the District Munsif, Madurantakam. 2. The First Appellate Court in his judgment in C.M.A.No.6 of 2006 has inter alia come to the conclusion that the trial Court has rightly granted the relief of interim injunction in restraining the defendants, their men etc. from any way cutting or removing the trees in the Kadamalaiputhur Lake in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 and resultantly, confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal without costs. 3. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 in O.S.No.151 of 2006 has inter alia that if the trees are cut and carried away, the petitioners Association would be put to serious loss and on the other hand if the trees remained intact and the respondents succeed in the suit then they could very well cut and carry the trees and these trees are not time bound one or trees which would lose their value or wither away with the passing of time and that the velikathan trees would gain in weight and value with the passing of every day and therefore, by granting of an order of injunction the respondents would not be put to any loss and hardship and resultantly, allowed the application of temporary injunction without costs. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have taken into account of the fact that the suit is for permanent injunction against the defendants from cutting and removing the trees in Kadamalaiputhur lake on the basis that the first respondent/plaintiff has representing the Kadamalaiputhur village irrigation society claimed to have been formed under Tamil Tamil Nadu Farmers Irrigation System Act, 2000 and that the PWD has authorised the Association to auction the usufructuous and trees in the lake and fisheries and further that the trial Court has failed to note that there is no provision under Act 7 of 2001 to divest any properties of the panchayat or to divest its duties and functions and moreover, there is no provision under the Act 7 of 2001 to vest the entire management of Lake, farms and other bodies in Village or its area of operation of associations/committees to be formed under the Act and as a matter of fact, the trial Court ought to have held that the functions and duties of panchayat under the Panchayat Act 1994 are not taken away by Act 7 of 2001 and indeed the First Appellate Court has omitted to consider Section 48 and Section 49 of Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 2001 which specifically states that such act is in addition to and in derogation of any other law for the time being in force etc. and that the trial Court should have seen that Lake and Lake bund having been specifically provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (procedure for taking up amount of loss and as well as in Panchayat Rules 2001) published in G.O.Ms.No.277 Rural Development (C4) dated 211. 2001 and in fact, the trial Court has not consider Ex.B1 and B2 which will establish the right being exercised by the Panchayat in respect of earlier period and further the first respondent/plaintiff has not filed any document to show at any earlier point of time since the coming into force of the Act they have exercised such right and in short, both the Courts below have not properly considered the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 2001 vis-a-vis functions and duties of the Panchayat under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 5. 5. Added further, it is represented on behalf of the revision petitioner that both the Courts ought to have held that the first respondent/plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience is not in favour of granting the relief of injunction and should have dismissed the application. 6. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the first respondent/ plaintiff claims to be a society formed under Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 2001 and Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act speaks of the Functions of Water Users Association and Section 27 Chapter 4 of the said Act refers to the Fund of Farmers Organisation and Sec.27 (4) says such income from the properties and assets attached to the irrigation system within its area of operation, as may be granted by the Government and organisation or society cannot by itself receive the income and in the present case, the panchayat periodically auctions the trees in the lake bund and that the second respondent/ second defendant is the successful bidder in the auction and he has cut the trees in pursuance of the auction held and that he has been prevented from cutting the trees and in fact, the first respondent/plaintiff/petitioner have made averments contrary to reality and in fact the first respondent/plaintiff has no balance of convenience and therefore, prays for allowing the revision. 7. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the first respondent/plaintiff in the plaint in O.S.No.151 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif at Madurantakam has inter alia averred that the Association is running the affairs of the Irrigation Society. After passing of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of irrigation System Act, 2000 (i.e) Act 7/2001, the plaintiff association has to increase its revenue and one of the source of income for the management fund is auctioning of properties and assets attached to the irrigation system within area of operation. The Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., Irrigation section, Acharapakkam has also authorised the plaintiff association to auction the usufructs of the trees in lake and fish and that the previous years also, the plaintiff auctioned. There are trees in the bund also in the catchment area of the lake which is worth more than two lakhs. The Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., Irrigation section, Acharapakkam has also authorised the plaintiff association to auction the usufructs of the trees in lake and fish and that the previous years also, the plaintiff auctioned. There are trees in the bund also in the catchment area of the lake which is worth more than two lakhs. The defendants No.1 has no authority to auction the trees (i.e.) to cut the trees after passing of the Act 7 of 2001. But the 1st defendant with a view to get necessary benefit highhandedly allowed the second defendant to cut and carry away the trees Kadamalaiputhur Lake. After coming to know the same, the plaintiff objected and complained to B.D.O. Acharapakkam but they failed to take any action etc. Moreover, in the cause of action paragraph No.6 it is mentioned that the cause of action has arisen on 06.07.2006 when the defendants highhandedly started cutting of trees in Kadamalaiputhur Lake, Kadamalaiputhur Village, Acharapakkam firka, Madurantakam taluk, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. 8. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant, it is among other things observed that the first respondent/plaintiff is only an advisory body and it is established only to guide the mode of irrigation and also to have a check regarding the inflow of water to the lake and that the plaintiff is abusing his office and that the trees are maintained only by the panchayat and the same plaintiff K.V.Balaraman while he was the president had auctioned the trees in the suit property and it is a major irrigation project entrusted to the Panchayat, which has to be maintained by the P.W.D. Since Kadamalaiputhur lake irrigates more than 100 acres and therefore, it has to be maintained by the P.W.D., but it vests with the panchayat and the Panchayat Raj Institution is entitled to auction the trees and it is in practice since 1950 and in the present case, it has been proposed to auction the trees and the resolution has been passed to that effect on 15. 2006 to auction the Velikathan at the lake bund and later that resolution has been implemented and that the auction has been held on 15. 2006 to auction the Velikathan at the lake bund and later that resolution has been implemented and that the auction has been held on 15. 2006 and the second respondent/second defendant has been the highest bidder, and he has taken it for Rs.15,000/- and the auction purchaser has started to cut the trees only after due confirmation of the auction since Balaraman is not in good terms with the present President of the Panchayat Raj Institution and since he has been defeated in the panchayat election by the present President, aggrieved over the same, he is indulged in mischievous acts and that the first respondent/plaintiff has never raised any trees in the suit property nor maintained the same and the trees are being maintained only by the Panchayat Raj Institution and the first respondent/ plaintiff has not filed any document to show he has conducted any auction during last year. 9. In the written statement filed by the second respondent/second defendant, it is inter alia mentioned that the first respondent/plaintiff has no interests at all over the trees in the suit property and that the plaintiff is not empowered to file the suit much less as President and as an auction purchaser, being the highest bidder and having paid Rs.15,000/- towards the sale price, which has also been confirmed, he has started to cut the trees and when the injunction order has been informed, he has stopped the work and the balance of convenience is in his favour. 10. The substance of the stand taken by the revision petitioner/first defendant is that on a reading of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 in its entirety goes to show that the Association is only an advisory body and nothing more. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff contends that the revision petitioner has no right to deal with the properties of the Lake and it must produce documents relating to the control over lake and it is not known as to who has given them the right to cut trees and in fact, no documents have been filed to that effect and if injunction goes, the second respondent/second defendant will remove the trees and in fact, the second respondent/second defendant has to establish his right during the course of the trial of the main case and therefore, prays for dismissing the revision petition. 12. 12. Expatiating his arguments the learned counsel for the revision petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Section 133 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 which deals with maintenance of irrigation works, execution of Kudimaramat, etc. and contends that the Government may transfer to any Village Panchayat or to any Panchayat Union Council the protection and maintenance of any irrigation work, the management of turns of irrigation, or the regulation of distribution of water from any irrigation work to the fields depending on it, subject to such conditions and control as may be prescribed and the Village Panchayat Raj, Panchayat Union Council shall have power, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, to execute Kudimaramat in respect of any irrigation source in the Village and to levy such village etc. and further Section 134 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 speaks of Village Panchayat to regulate the use of certain porambokes in ryotwari tracts and that the lake poramboke is governed/regulated by the PWD and as per Section 134(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 the Village Panchayat shall also have power subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, to regulate the use of any other poramboke which is at the disposal of the Government, if the Village Panchayat is authorised in that behalf by an order of the Government and Section 134(5) of the said Act enjoins that the Village Panchayat, may subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed, plant trees on any poramboke, the use of which is regulated by it under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) and that the trial Courts observation in the order in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 dated 11.08.2006 of divesting is not correct and therefore, prays for interference by this Court. 13. 13. It is significant to point out that Section 134 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act corresponds to Section 86 of 1958 Act and Section 60 of the 1950 Act and this provision is applicable to ryotwari tracts and the panchayat has got right to regulate the use of such porambokes and this section makes no mention of the vesting of tank poramboke in Panchayat 1960 (1) Andhra W.R. In the decision the Rishiyur Panchayat represented by President Mannargudi Taluk V. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannarkudi and others (1971) I MLJ at page 341 this Court has held as follows: "It is incumbent upon the Collector before notifying, defining or limiting the control or administration of any public source of water-supply, to consult the panchayat and give due regard to their objections. No such notice was given to the panchayat as such. A statement given by the President of the panchayat on his own volition describing himself as the president of the panchayat is not equatable to a statement made by the panchayat itself. It is not even claimed that the panchayat was called upon to state its objections. Thus, the prescription in Section 84(2) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, has not been followed." 14. Moreover, Section 134 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 reads that the following porambokes namely, grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle-stands, cart-stands and topes shall vest in the Village Panchayat, and the Village Panchayat shall have power, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed to regulate the use of such porambokes, provided the porambokes are at the disposal of the Government. Therefore, as per Section 134(2) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 it is quite evident that the Panchayat has got right to plant trees on any poramboke, the use of which is regulated as per sub-section (2) and (4). Therefore, as per Section 134(2) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 it is quite evident that the Panchayat has got right to plant trees on any poramboke, the use of which is regulated as per sub-section (2) and (4). Apart from the above, in the decision I.Sivasubramanian V. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Disaster and Disaster Relief Department, Chennai and two others 2008 (2) CTC 160 , this Court has held that " Land as defined under Section 2(q) means any land under any registered ayacut of any irrigation system and "water user" as defined under Section 2(y) means any farmer holding land either as the owner or as the tenant recorded as such in the revenue records of rights in respect of such land and includes any other individual or body or society using water for agriculture, from a Government source. No distinction made in Act between wet and dry lands. Owner of dry lands is also a water user. First Respondents order was on an erroneous interpretation of the terms of the Act." 15. The learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff refers to Section 3 of T.N. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 which speaks of Delineation of Water Users Association area in and by which the Collector may, in such manner as may be prescribed, delineate command area under each irrigation system on a hydraulic basis, which may be administratively viable, and declare it to be a Water Users Association area for the purposes of this Act. Provided that in respect of the command area under the minor irrigation systems, the entire command area may, as far as possible, form a single water users association area and further that every water users associations area shall be divided into territorial constituencies, which shall not be less than four, but shall not be more than ten, as may be prescribed and that the revision petitioner/first respondent/first defendant has no manner of right and therefore, prays for dismissal of the civil revision petition. Besides this, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has referred to Section 22 of the T.N. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 which speaks of Functions of Water Users Association and the sub-section (q) of the aforesaid Section enjoins to encourage avenue for plantation on canal and tank poramboke, and to protect and maintain such plantations and therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff has the right to auction the usufructs of the trees in the lake and also fish and per contra, the revision petitioner/first defendant has no authority to auction the trees i.e. to cut the trees after passing of T.N. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 (T.N. Act 7 of 2001). 16. A perusal of affidavit averments in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 in O.S.No.151 of 2006 on the file of trial Court filed by the first respondent/plaintiff President indicates that the plaintiff association has to increase its revenue and one of the source of income of the management fund is auction of properties and assets attached to the irrigation system within the area of operation and that Assistant Engineer, PWD (Irrigation Section), Acharapakkam has also authorised the petitioner/plaintiff association to auction the usufructs of the trees in the lake and also fish etc. and further that the revision petitioner/first defendant has no authority to auction the trees after passing of the Act 7 of 2001 and therefore, has prayed for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants etc. therein from anyway cutting or removing the trees in the Kadamalaiputhur Village lake till the disposal of the suit. 17. The revision petitioner/first defendant in its counter has stated that admittedly the trees are maintained only by the Panchayat and the same plaintiff K.V.Balaraman while he was the President had auctioned the trees in the suit property and it is a major irrigation project entrusted to the Panchayat and which has to be maintained by the P.W.D., since Kadamalaiputhur Village irrigates more than 100 acres and it comes major irrigation scheme and therefore, it has to be maintained by the P.W.D. Further, it vests with the Panchayat etc. and further that the first respondent/plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he is maintaining the trees and that he has not raised any trees in the suit property nor maintained the same and has prayed for dismissal of the application. and further that the first respondent/plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he is maintaining the trees and that he has not raised any trees in the suit property nor maintained the same and has prayed for dismissal of the application. The second respondent in his counter has taken a stand that he is the auction purchaser and he is the highest bidder and after the confirmation of sale he has started to cut the trees and partly cut and remove the same and when he has been informed about the order of injunction he has stopped the work and that the balance of convenience is only in his favour. 18. The fact that 50% of the trees have been cut has not been denied. To put it precisely, the relief prayed for by the first respondent/plaintiff in the main suit namely, the relief of permanent injunction and the interim relief prayed for in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 namely, temporary injunction are one and the same, in the considered opinion of this Court. 19. At this stage, this Court points out the decision Ashok Kumar Bajpai V. Dr.Smt.Ranjana Raj Bajpai AIR 2004 Allahabad at page 107 wherein it is observed that Court should not grant interim relief which amounts to final relief and in exceptional circumstances where Court is satisfied that ultimately petitioner is bound to succeed and fact situation warrants granting such relief, relief could be granted. But Court must record reasons for passing such order and make it clear as to what are special circumstances for which relief is being granted. Further, it is the well accepted principle of law that granting an injunction is a matter of discretion and in this exercise, the Court has to satisfy itself whether the petitioner/plaintiff has a triable case and importantly the petitioner before seeking the jurisdiction of the Court to get the relief of interim injunction must show that he has a legal right and there has been an invasion of that right. In Intas Laboratories Private Limited V. Novaritis A.G. 2005 (1) CTC 27 (DB) this Court has held that Court should not adjudicate matter in controversy in suit at interlocutory stage itself. 20. In fact, temporary injunction can be granted only if an individual seeking the same has a concluded right capable of being enforced by way of injunction. In Intas Laboratories Private Limited V. Novaritis A.G. 2005 (1) CTC 27 (DB) this Court has held that Court should not adjudicate matter in controversy in suit at interlocutory stage itself. 20. In fact, temporary injunction can be granted only if an individual seeking the same has a concluded right capable of being enforced by way of injunction. Moreover, when there is contest or controversy between the parties about the status then a Court of law normally refrains from granting final relief at an interlocutory stage, in the considered opinion of this Court. 21. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ first defendant submits that Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 has only subsection (1) to (6) in English and there is no sub-section (7) and (8) in the statue book, but the appellate authority in his order in C.M.A.No.6 of 2006 dated 01.07.2008 has referred to Section 27(8) of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act (possibly from the Tamil translation) and according to him, the said Act in English is the proper one to be taken note of by a Court of law and that the First Appellate Court has relied on the Tamil version of the Act which is not an authenticated and this has affected the revision petitioner/first defendant in the present case. In this connection, this Court aptly points out that the Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation .Systems Act, 2000 (in English) after getting assent from the President of India on 25.02.2001 has only six sub-sections in Section 27 which refers to Fund of Farmers Organisation and therefore, one can accept the Act in English as an authenticated one. 22. It is not out of place to point out that G.O.Ms.No.277 Rural Development (C4), dated 22nd November 2001 (published on 211. 2001) Notification speaks of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Procedure for conducting public auction of leases and sales in panchayats) Rules 2001 and Rule 3(1) says that the panchayat shall lease out or sell in public auction in an open and transparent manner, the right to enjoyment of properties of a panchayat or right to the collection of fees for the use of public places in the panchayat for commercial and other purposes, specified in sub-rule (2). The panchayat shall also sell in public auction any unusable or unserviceable article as specified in clause (xi) in sub-rule (2) whose estimated value is more than Rs.100 (Rupees one hundred only) and sub-rule (2) refers to the list of items that may be leased out which are (i)own lands and other immovable properties of the panchayat (ii) vested or regualted poramboke lands under the control of the panchayat etc. Pertinently, it is to be pointed out that Rule 3 (2)(v) in the aforesaid G.O., usufructs of trees on the panchayat roads, topes and on roads belonging to the Highways and Rural works Department. Trees on Public Works Department lands over which the panchayats has been given control and other panchayat properties and Rule 3 (2)(xi) refers to the sale of unusable or unserviceable articles which are (i)wind fallen and withered trees etc. 23. On the side of first respondent/plaintiff reliance is placed on to the copy of Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department G.O.Ms.No.1319 dated 8. 1975 which inter alia speaks of the amendment which enjoins that the transfer of minor irrigation works to the panchayat unions for maintenance, execution of Kudimaramat works by the Panchayats and it is inter alia made clear that the whole of the income derived from the fishery rights of the Government in such works shall be credited to the Panchayat Union (General) funds and the Government shall resume from the Panchayat Unions the Minor Irrigation tanks other than those referred in above and vest them in the Public Works Department. Added further, the Kancheepuram Disrict Gazette dated 13. 2003 is also relied on the side of first respondent/plaintiff in support of their case. 24. In Ex.B.13 letter dated 111. 2007 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Madurantakam addressed to the President of Lake Water Irrigation Association, Nerkunam it is stated that as per the existing G.Os., the P.W.D. alone has got a right to auction the trees which are in the lake bund and that the auction amount has to be credited in the name of Executive Engineer by paying the same in State Bank of India etc. and in future the Lake Water Irrigation Association shall not conduct auction of trees which are in the maintenance of PWD or cut the same and any violation in this regard will be viewed seriously. 25. and in future the Lake Water Irrigation Association shall not conduct auction of trees which are in the maintenance of PWD or cut the same and any violation in this regard will be viewed seriously. 25. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the conflicting and competing claims made by both parties which are a mixed question of fact and law to be proved during the trial of the case in a complete and comprehensive manner by means of adducing oral and documentary evidence apart from raising arguable points, in the considered opinion of this Court and moreover, since the relief prayed for in the main suit and in I.A.No.1024 of 2006 are one and the same, this Court on the basis of equity, fair play and on the principles of natural justice and even as per law, without going into the merits of the matter, disposes the civil revision petition with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liberty is given to the parties to raise all factual and legal contentions before the trial Court. The parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court in regard to the completion of the main proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.