Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1599 (MAD)

E. Shanmugasundaram v. District Collector, Erode

2022-06-21

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents culminated in and by proceedings of the 2nd respondent in impugned order in Na.Ka.3112/2021/A1, dated 14.09.2021, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct proper enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the second respondent directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised pipe lines put up by the petitioner in the LBP canal blocking free flow of water to the land belonging to the sixth respondent in Survey No.79/3C. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: (a) The second respondent viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer has no locus standi to issue orders to Tahsildar to remove the PVC pipeline formed in private land. Further, the petitioner was not served with any notice and no enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was also not communicated to him; (b)The petitioner has obtained permission to lay pipelines under orders dated 18.12.2014 and 22.06.2015 by the fourth respondent; (c) The representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2021 to the second respondent requesting him not to pass any order without conducting any enquiry with regard to the pipeline put up by the petitioner was not considered and ignoring the same the impugned order dated 14.09.2021 has been passed by the second respondent without hearing the petitioner; (d) The petitioner has laid pipelines in the lands belonging to his neighbours with their permission and is not an encroacher. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent denying the contentions of the petitioner. According to the second respondent, the reports received from the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer reveal that there are encroachments made by the petitioner and he is pumping the water from the sluice illegally and letting the same through unauthorised pipelines. It is also stated that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, LBP Division, Erode had stated in the letters dated 07.05.2018 and 20.11.2018 that the land bearing R.S.No.79/3C of Vadugpatti village, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District is an irrigation land receiving the water for irrigation through the sluice No.2(E) situated at mile 3-3-320 of Chennasamuthiram Distribution Branch Channel diverted at mile 0-3-156. According to the second respondent, the report of the field staff reveals that the petitioner has laid the PVC Pipelines along the waterways and obstructed the free water flow to the land owned by the 6th respondent in R.S.No.79/3C. 4. The second respondent has also stated that the land in R.S.No.84 and 83/3, for which, the petitioner is said to have obtained permission to lay pipelines is not connected with the impugned order which pertains to PAP canal which is a public canal meant for all agriculturists in that area. According to the second respondent, in view of the status quo order dated 01.10.2021, granted by this Court, the implementation of the impugned order dated 14.09.2021 is kept in abeyance affecting the interest of the agriculturists in that area. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent who is the brother of the petitioner and he is the neighbouring land owner. He also submits that the pipelines which are to be removed under the impugned order does not fall within the lands of the petitioner, but starts in the border of the petitioner's land and are situated only adjoining the lands of one K.Subramani. The 6th respondent contends that there is no necessity to give an opportunity of hearing in the impugned proceedings to the petitioner as the lands where the pipelines are unauthorisedly laid is located only adjoining to Mr.K.Subramani's land who was given notice in the impugned proceedings. According to the sixth respondent, Mr.K.Subramani, on receipt of notice of inspection was also present at the site during the inspection by the officials. The 6th respondent states that the lands belonging to the petitioner is situated in Survey No.79/3D, whereas the land belonging to the sixth respondent is situated in Survey No.79/3C and the lands of Mr.K.Subramani are situated in Survey No.80/2. The entire inspection was held only in the lands situated in S.No.80/2 and the orders passed to remove the pipelines are also only for the pipelines laid in the lands situated in Survey No.80/2. 6. According to the 6th respondent, due to the illegal and unauthorised laying of pipelines, the petitioner is not getting sufficient water for irrigation purposes and his well always remains dry. 6. According to the 6th respondent, due to the illegal and unauthorised laying of pipelines, the petitioner is not getting sufficient water for irrigation purposes and his well always remains dry. The 6th respondent has reiterated the contentions of the 2nd respondent by stating that the petitioner has encroached upon the private land which is not belonging to him and has illegally laid pipe lines to divert the water for his agricultural land which affects the interest of the petitioner and other agriculturists in the same area. 7. Heard Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.H.Ravi Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 8. The respective learned counsels reiterated the contents of the respective affidavits filed by the respective parties before this Court in their submissions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the documents filed along with this writ petition viz., the permission granted by the fourth respondent on 18.12.2014 as well as the permission granted on 22.06.2015 for laying the pipelines. He also drew the attention of this Court to the representation given by the petitioner to the second respondent requesting the second respondent not to take any further action without hearing the petitioner. He submits that having obtained permission for laying pipelines, the second respondent cannot now state that no permission was obtained for laying pipelines. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not heard in the impugned proceedings despite the request made to the second respondent to give an opportunity of hearing by his letter dated 04.09.2021. 10. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent referred to the various paragraphs found in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and submitted that the petitioner is an encroacher and the unauthorised laying of pipelines will affect the free flow of water in the canal and also affect the interest of all agriculturists in that area including the 6th respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent would also submit that there is no necessity to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as he is an encroacher. 11. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent would also submit that there is no necessity to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as he is an encroacher. He also drew the attention of this Court to the permissions obtained by the petitioner on 18.12.2014 and 22.06.2015 from the fourth respondent and submitted that the said permission does not pertain to the subject lands where pipe lines have been illegally laid by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the writ petition but they pertain to Survey Nos.81/3 and 83/3A which are not the lands where pipelines were laid. According to the 6th respondent, the second respondent has correctly directed the petitioner to remove the pipelines as no permission was obtained. 12. This Court has perused and examined the affidavits filed in support of the writ petition as well as the documents filed along with the same. 13. According to the petitioner, he has obtained permission for laying pipelines for the purpose of irrigating his agricultural lands. The permission letters dated 18.12.2014 and 22.06.2015 issued by the fourth respondent have been filed along with the writ petition. However, as seen from the said permission letters, the permission has been granted only for Survey Nos.81/3 and 83/3A. The 6th respondent has filed a sketch pertaining to various agricultural properties adjoining the LBP canal where the petitioner has laid pipelines. As seen from the sketch, Survey Nos.81/3 and 83/3A which belong to the petitioner, do not fall in the area where pipelines are located. The pipelines which have been directed to be removed by the second respondent under the impugned order are located adjoining Subramani's land in Survey No.80/2. The land belonging to the 6th respondent is comprised in S.No.79/3C and is neighbouring the petitioner's land. 14. If the water from the canal is allowed to be used by the petitioner through the unauthorised pipelines laid by him, the rights of the agriculturists in that area will be affected due to the illegal tapping of water by the petitioner. The 6th respondent has also stated in his affidavit that due to illegal tapping of the water by the petitioner, the water in his bore well remains empty most of the time. The 6th respondent has also stated in his affidavit that due to illegal tapping of the water by the petitioner, the water in his bore well remains empty most of the time. The second respondent has also stated in the counter affidavit that only based on the reports received from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, viz., the fourth respondent herein, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised pipelines. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has to be heard in the impugned proceedings will not arise in view of the fact that the concerned authority who has granted permission in respect of Survey Nos.81/3 and 83/3A has submitted a Report to the second respondent that the petitioner is an encroacher in respect of the pipelines laid by him. No iota of evidence has been produced by the petitioner before this Court to show that the land in which pipelines were laid by him has been laid only with the permission of the concerned statutory / revenue authorities. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.