Judgment 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Pa.Mu(A3) 3814/2014, dated 18.06.2014 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same. 2. According to the Writ Petitioner, the impugned order is wrong only on the basis that there is already a dispute between two villages regarding the taking of water from the Oorani. Earlier a Writ Petition in W.P.No.10374 of 2005 was filed for survey the boundaries between the villages and the same has been dismissed for default on 17.10.2006. In fact, Tamarind trees is falling within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner panchayat. Therefore the 5th respondent villagers have developed a grudge upon them. The fifth respondent villagers have filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.18495 of 2013 for a direction forbearing the Government from granting permission to the Petitioner's Panchayat to lay a road between Kokkarankottai and Uchinatham. Therefore according to the Writ Petitioner, fifth respondent cannot have any grievance over laying of road and no such representation was given and that the road was laid. According to him, the said Oorani situated in the northern side of the Petitioner's village and water is used only for drinking and cooking purpose and the water is not used for any other purpose. Similarly, the 5th respondent Village had two ooranies for their drinking purpose. The present order is against their rights and to discharge the rain water through the northern side of their village and importantly to break the wall on the northern side of the Petitioner's Oorani and to construct steps to fetch water from the northern side. It is further submitted that the boundary was surveyed earlier in the presence of all the officials and persons concerned and that they do not have any objection regarding the discharge of rain water in the manner they like. However the breaking of the wall protecting the oorani in the northern side is completely unnecessary. Therefore they challenge the order impugned herein. 3. As per the said understanding and agreement entered between the parties, the Petitioner has already accepted and implemented their part of construction and they have completed the Padithurai(Steps) on their side. However the breaking of the wall protecting the oorani in the northern side is completely unnecessary. Therefore they challenge the order impugned herein. 3. As per the said understanding and agreement entered between the parties, the Petitioner has already accepted and implemented their part of construction and they have completed the Padithurai(Steps) on their side. But when it comes to the implementation for the respondent, they have come forward with this present Writ Petition stating false and frivolous allegations. Therefore even as per the understanding and the agreement between the parties, they are entitled to have their own Padithurai(steps) in their side. 4. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would bring to the notice of this Court even in the impugned order the entire villagers were present along with Village Panchayat President. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Panchayat President and he was aware of the order passed. They have been given due representation regarding the same and the order is a consent order and that clause(3) of the order, namely: “TAMIL” 5. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent contends that the said Oorani is situated in the bordering area of both the villages i.e., on the northern end of Kondunallanpatti Village and in the southern end of Kokkarasankottai Village. It is further submitted that the Oorani itself was formed only with an object to use it for drinking purpose by both villagers. It is further submitted that there is no wall surrounding the Oorani and only by the bund the same is protected till date. The poor people belonging to Kokkarasankottai village only used it for their drinking purpose and other ooranis are situated away from their residence and they are used for cleaning the cattle and for bathing purpose. Another one oorani is used for irrigation purpose and it is situated in the midst of agricultural fields.It is further submitted that in the year 2010 that half portion of the northern wall adjoining to Kokkarasankottai to V.Sethuraspuram Road is constructed by the own panchayat and the north eastern side was left as such and they used that side as their access to fetch water from the Oorani. It is further contended that the Writ Petitioner by his attitude has in the year 2012 approached the Union Officials seeking permission to construct walls on the remaining half portion on north-eastern side and the first respondent without adverting to the dispute with regard to the Oorani between the villagers. 6. Since it is a consent order and the Petitioner/Panchayat has participated and having accepted the order and implemented to construct steps on their side, now it is not open to them to challenge the same. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would contend that it is purely in respect of taking water and in the interest of both parties, this consent order has been passed. 8. Heard the submissions of Mr.Chengiz Khan, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the learned counsel on record for the Petitioner. 9. According to the Petitioner the rights of the parties are affected. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent both the parties have been heard and the President of the Petitioner village was very much aware and also present at the time of passing of the order. Now clause 3 in the order categorically enables for getting water. Both sides have normally accepted the order coupled with the fact that subsequent to the order, the Petitioner's side Padithurai(steps) have been constructed and they have timely implemented the order. Therefore at this point of time he cannot seek the order impugned herein as illegal. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.