Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying to direct the respondents to realign the Mudukulathur bye-pass road proposed in the middle of Mudukulathur tank to alternative plan away from the Kanmai as per the realignment plan previously proposed by the Respondents. 2. The petitioner is a former. He and his village people are depending upon the Mudukulathur Kanmai for irrigation to their fields. 3. The first respondent published a notification, dated 29.03.2012 in proceeding Na.Ka.P1/10357/2012 to acquire the lands in Mel Mudukulathur Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District for the purpose of laying National Highways, inviting objections from the land owners. The petitioner filed objection. 4. According to the petitioner, the lands are agricultural lands and most of the villagers are depending upon the income from the agriculture. It is only source of income of their livelihood. The original plan and alignment of the road was far away from the Tank and it would not affect the agricultural lands. At the instance of local MLA, whose lands are affected by the alignment, the original plan and alignment was changed. As per the present plan and alignment National Highways also crosses the Mudukulathur Kanmai in Survey Nos.69 and 78. 5. According to the petitioner, the earlier plan and alignment were proposed near the Mudukulathur Bridge in the un-cultivable lands in Survey Nos.72, 73 and 74 and also on the bund of Mudukulathur Kanmai on either side. The petitioner gave a representation, dated 07.04.2012 to realign the road proposed in the middle of the Mudukulathur Tank plan to alternate plan. The enquiry was conducted by the third respondent on 02.05.2012. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and gave objections. According to the petitioner, the third respondent did not pass any orders on the objection. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 6. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating that after notification, enquiry was held by the third respondent on 02.05.2012. The petitioner gave an objections. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner requested the third respondent to fix the compensation to his land at Rs.300/- per sq.feet under private negotiation. After completion of personal hearing, other procedures for acquiring the lands were started. But on the request of the requitioning body, the land acquisition proceedings was temporarily stopped. The petitioner gave an objections. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner requested the third respondent to fix the compensation to his land at Rs.300/- per sq.feet under private negotiation. After completion of personal hearing, other procedures for acquiring the lands were started. But on the request of the requitioning body, the land acquisition proceedings was temporarily stopped. The revised Land Plan Schedule has been received from the requitioning body with minor changes in alignment of Bye Pass road. The alignment has been refixed only on the approval of the Alignment Committee and in accordance with the norms. The alignment was changed only at the request of the requitioning body. 7. By changed alignment, storing capacity of Kanmai, Ayacut area of the Tank and the catchment area will not be affected. The respondents have stated that by formation of Bye pass road, the Tank would not be affected as it has been proposed to form the road by providing balancing culverts. The Flow of water of the Tank from one side to another side of the Bye Pass road would not be affected because of balancing culverts. 8. By forming Bye pass road, livelihood of formers will not be affected. By the present alignment 554 sq.M. of petitioner's land only is to be acquired while as per the previous plan 2140 sq.m. was sought to be acquired. The alignment was proposed across Tank only by approval of alignment committee. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Heard Mrs.J.Meenakshi, learned counsel for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. The petitioner's grievance is that by changing the alignment and by the proposed present alignment, the storage capacity in the Kanmai will be affected and the formers in the village could not carry out the agricultural activities. But from the counter filed by the respondent, it is seen that the project of Bye pass road is to be implemented without affecting storage capacity of Kanmai, Catchment area and Flow of Water. The respondents are providing balancing culverts from one side to other side. The present alignment was as per the approval of alignment committee, who has approved the same after considering the Pros and Cons. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are only misconception and misapprehension. The respondents are providing balancing culverts from one side to other side. The present alignment was as per the approval of alignment committee, who has approved the same after considering the Pros and Cons. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are only misconception and misapprehension. The present Bye Pass road is implemended for the welfare of the general public. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. 11. Accordingly, the the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 are closed.