Judgment :- Heard Mr.K.J.Saravanan, 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 for a direction to direct the second respondent to stop taking water from the Well of the petitioner's property situated at Plot No.B/1, Old S.No.183/1, 2, 3 & 4 and as per Patta New S.No.183/30, Patta No.875 situated at Old Village Nos.99 and 87, Arunagiri Street, Devaraj Nagar Extension, New Village No.1, Anakaputhur Village. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property and he purchased the said property along with his wife Padmini of an extent of 3981 Sq.Ft. and registered the same in Document No.1254/2008 at Pammal Sub-Registrar Office on 27.3.2008. The said property consists of three plots of an extent of 1813 Sq.Ft. bearing Plot No.A, 1108 Sq.Ft. bearing Plot No.B/1 and 1060 Sq.Ft. bearing Plot No.B/2. The CMDA approved the same, vide plan approval in 28/2007-2008, dated 22.2.2008. The petitioner claims that he is enjoying the said property. There is a Well situated in Plot No.B/1 of the said property. It is his case that the second respondent's men trespassed into the said property in the month of May 2012 and pulled down the fencing made by the petitioner on the said property. The second respondent, without any Government order, started pumping water from the Well situated in Plot No.B/1 of the abovesaid property using heavy motor pump, which is an illegal act. The petitioner made representations to the first and second respondents on 10.9.2012 and 17.6.2012 respectively, but no action has yet been taken. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner made representations to the first and second respondents on 10.9.2012 and 17.6.2012 respectively, but no action has yet been taken. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The second respondent, by giving written instructions to the learned Spl.G.P., took a stand that the authorities have acted only for the benefit of public, without any personal motive, since the said Well had been used by the public from time immemorial without any objection of any kind and the fact remains that only based upon the public request, the authorities have come forward to do certain acts after ascertaining the following facts: (a) Since the public had been using the said Well for several years and the owners were unidentifiable and not residing within the jurisdiction of the body, after making best efforts in identifying the owner of the land, finally, the authorities decided to lay the motor and institute two Sintax tanks to store the water and supply the same to the public. (b) The authorities were forced to take such measures for the reason that the water scarcity reached the maximum level, where the ground water level utterly failed and the public started suffering for their essential requirement of water. (c) The steps taken by the authorities are only temporary measures and for the sole benefit of the public alone; otherwise, there is no claim whatsoever over the said land or the petitioner's right over the same and that too, after making a thorough search about the details of the owner of the land and in order to meet out the emergency requirement of the public, the said act was done. 5. On the above instructions, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents submitted that it is purely on the public interest, the second respondent acted so, and the petitioner's vendor alone permitted the public to use the Well for taking water and it is not for the petitioner all of a sudden to stop the drawal of water, denying the water to the local public. 6. On the above stated position, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The petitioner's grievance appears to be that he is the owner of the land by virtue of the sale deed in Document No.1254/2008, dated 27.3.2008 and the said land had been divided into three portions, namely Plot No.A, Plot No.B/1 and Plot No.B/2. 6. On the above stated position, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The petitioner's grievance appears to be that he is the owner of the land by virtue of the sale deed in Document No.1254/2008, dated 27.3.2008 and the said land had been divided into three portions, namely Plot No.A, Plot No.B/1 and Plot No.B/2. In Plot No.B/1, there is a Well. It is seen that the Well had been used by the local public for drawal of water, which was permitted by the petitioner's vendor. After the purchase of the land, the petitioner objected to the drawal of water in the month of May 2012 and thereafter, represented to the authorities that he is the owner of the land, and as there was no action to stop the public from taking water, the petitioner has come before this Court. 8. It is equally important to note that since the public had been using the said Well for several years and as the owner was unidentifiable and not residing within the jurisdiction of the boy, after making best efforts by the authorities to identify the owner of the land, the authorities finally decided to lay the motor and institute two Sintax tanks to store the water and supply the same to the public. But this could be done only by taking due permission from the petitioner, who is the owner of the property or by taking steps to acquire the property from him for public purpose. In the absence of any such steps being taken by the authorities, it is not proper for the authorities to draw water from the petitioner's Well, since after the purchase of the land, he became the owner and now the said act had been objected to by him and the authorities are under the obligation to act only in accordance with law by taking appropriate measures by taking permission from the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner's vendor allowed the public to take water from the Well for several years and without doing so, the respondents are not bound to do anything contrary to law, that too, without the permission from the petitioner. If it is for the public purpose, it is always open for the authorities to take appropriate steps either to get permission from the petitioner-owner or to acquire the land in accordance with law. As of now, it is not done by the authorities, but on the contrary, now they are taking steps to instal motor and institute two Sintax tanks for storing water to supply the same to the public. 9. In the light of the above stated position and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps either to get permission from the owner being the petitioner of the land in question and allow the public to take water from the Well in question, or in the alternative, as per the scheme of the Municipality, to take steps to acquire the land in accordance with law for supplying the water to the public. This exercise has to be done within three months from today. In the meantime, the petitioner shall in the interest of the larger public, as the water being essential for the people, co-operate with the authorities for permitting the public to take water from the Well in question. 10. With the above observations/direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.