Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.A.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to lay or form the drainage canal little bit away from the petitioner's agricultural lands and Wells situated in the survey numbers 237/4, 239/1, 239/2 in a total extent of 2 acres in punjai Kolanalli Village, Erode District. 3. According to the petitioner, he is having agricultural lands along with residential house with two big Wells utilised for the drinking and irrigation purposes to do the agricultural operations in the said lands and he is cultivating turmeric, paddy, sugarcane crops for several years. He is possessing the lands by virtue of the pattas in Nos.1105, 158 and 82 dated 17.8.2012 respectively issued by the authorities concerned. To that effect, the Village Administrative Officer has also issued a Certificate dated 21.8.2012 establishing his possession and enjoyment with regard to his lands. He being the absolute owner, there was no interference or hindrance in any other manner. There is an interference of laying pipe lines and the two big Wells were constructed for irrigation purposes and also for drinking purpose and he is purely depending on the said Wells for the said purposes. Already there is a drainage canal running towards the East side of the Village and the same has to be renovated or properly constructed in the same manner and ways which is already in existence for years together. The third respondent has been making all sorts of immediate arrangements to form the drainage canal to the said village in an alternative way and manner which passes very nearer to the said Wells owned by the petitioner. All of a sudden, on 17.8.2012, the subordinates of the third respondent, with their men and servants, came nearer the petitioner's lands and started digging the lands with the help of poclain vehicle and proceeding to work in an urgent manner. The petitioner informed and requested the third respondent to form the drainage canal little bit away from his Wells. Since it is formed very adjacent to the petitioner's Wells, the drainage water will pollute the Wells, which not only pollutes the Well water, but also the agricultural operations will be affected. The petitioner informed and requested the third respondent to form the drainage canal little bit away from his Wells. Since it is formed very adjacent to the petitioner's Wells, the drainage water will pollute the Wells, which not only pollutes the Well water, but also the agricultural operations will be affected. But the respondents, without looking into the vital aspect of the matter, proceeded further with the said act of continuing the work nearer to the petitioner's lands and Wells. Finding no other alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this Court after making a representation to the respondents on 18.8.2012. 4. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds in the Writ Petition assailing the action of the respondents and prayed for the above direction, the main ground alleged is that if any drainage canal is close to his Wells, it will pollute the Wells, thereby, affecting the petitioner's agricultural operations as well as drinking purpose. 5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and inter-alia stated that the Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Writ Petition is misconceived, as the present project is only widening and deepening the existing drainage canal. In between the said canals and the petitioner's lands, is the Main Road, and therefore, there is no possibility of drainage water mixing with the water in the petitioner's Wells. The respondents are only renovating the existing canal and they are not constructing any new canal near the lands of the petitioner. Since the existing canal is renovated, which is situated on the other side of the road, the question of laying or forming a drainage canal little bit away from the petitioner's agricultural lands and Wells does not arise. The petitioner's lands are situated abutting the road. There is no gap between the petitioner's lands and the road for constructing new drainage canal. The drainage canal is constructed on the other side of the road in the lands belonging to the Panchayat. The balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and general public. If the main drainage canal is not constructed before the monsoon starts, the general public will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and mainly, the School children will be greatly affected. A sum of Rs.6,60,000/-was sanctioned by the MLA from and out of the constituency improvement fund. If the main drainage canal is not constructed before the monsoon starts, the general public will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and mainly, the School children will be greatly affected. A sum of Rs.6,60,000/-was sanctioned by the MLA from and out of the constituency improvement fund. Tenders were called for and tender was granted to the person who quoted lowest amount and the work is half way through. The said canal is not on the side of the petitioner's lands or near his Wells. It is on the other side of the road and in between the petitioner's land where the Wells are situated and the canal is in the main road. Therefore, there is no possibility of rain or drainage water mixing with the water in the Wells situated in the petitioner's lands. The canal is connected to mud tank where it is absorbed in the earth. No such incident as stated by the petitioner happened on 17.8.2012 or any other subsequent day and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. The third respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit stating that there is no possibility of leakage or pilferage into the Wells in and around the canal. Both the sides of the canal are constructed with concrete in the village area to an extent of 80 metres and after the village area, RCC pipe is laid and covered for 125 metres connecting the mud tank. 7. On the above background of pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted showing the photographs that close to the Wells, the canal has been proposed to be widened and therefore, there is likelihood of damage to the Wells and the water may be polluted. On the other hand, learned Spl.G.P. also produced photographs in support of the stand of the respondents and showed that it is the canal which is already in existence and now widening and deepening work is carried on after getting sanction from the MLA constituency improvement fund and the improvement has been carried on in order to benefit the public at large and the Wells of the petitioners are abutting the road and on the other side only, the drainage canal is being proceeded with and it is not in any way hindrance to the petitioner or even to pollute the water. Therefore, the petitioner cannot come before this Court for the above relief. However, learned Spl.G.P. pointed out paragraph 4 of the additional counter filed by the third respondent, which states as follows: "4. I filed this Additional Counter Affidavit categorically stating that no possibility of leakage, or pilferage into the wells in and around the canal. Both the side of the canal is constructed with concrete in the Village area to an extent of 80 Metres. After the Village area RCC Pipe is laid and covered for 125 Metres connecting the mud tank. Therefore, there is no possibility of any leakage or pilferage in the land and Well." 8. Learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents on further instructions from the respondents submitted that if at all, the construction may go up to 150 metres and beyond that, it is not possible to dug out the canal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is seen that the petitioner is the owner of the lands and the Wells in question. He is doing agricultural operations and from the pleadings as well as from the photographs, it is seen that there are Wells close to the house of the petitioner and also field operations are being carried on and on the other side of the road, a canal has been dug up and deepening work of the canal is being carried on. However, as the widening and deepening is close to the Wells of the petitioner, there is likelihood of damage and leakage of water, but now, the respondents have taken a stand that it is possible for existing demarcation from 125 to 150 metres and beyond that, the construction is not possible. If such is the stand of the respondents, it would be appropriate that in order to meet the ends of justice, taking into account the over all factors and what are all the grievances expressed by the petitioner and for the public protection for the benefit of the villagers, such a project is necessary, however, the respondents' stand is that there may be possibility of dugging out the entire area only from 125 to 150 metres, the same is hereby recorded, making it clear that the respondents may do the work upto the distance of 150 metres. The grievance of the petitioner to that extent is redressed. 10. The grievance of the petitioner to that extent is redressed. 10. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's prayer for forming the drainage canal little bit away from the agricultural lands and Wells, is satisfied to the extent indicated above as per the stand of the respondents, which is taken on record. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.