JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 6th respondent in relation to the letter issued in No.Ka.27/09/A-23 A.E.(V) dated 20.11.2009 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to take action for regularization of lift irrigation of petitioner's land by taking water from Mohanur Canal as provided under G.O.Ms.No.1588 Public Works Department dated 03.10.1988.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 6th respondent dated 02.11.2009 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize the lift irrigation in the petitioner’s land by enabling the petitioner to take water from Mohanur Canal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a small farmer owning 2 acres of land in Agrahara Manapalli village. According to the petitioner, he is irrigating his lands by lifting water from the Mohanur Canal which branches from River Cauvery. The petitioner sought for regularizing the lift irrigation in line with G.O.Ms.No.1588, dated 03.10.1988. However, the 6th respondent through proceedings dated 2.11.2009, took action against the petitioner for illegally drawing water from the Mohanur Canal and directed the petitioner to remove the motor within 21 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. Heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.1588, dated 3.10.1988. The relevant portions in the G.O. are extracted hereunder: “3. The Government have carefully considered these requestes, the regularisation of unauthorised pumpsets could be permitted only with the taking up simultaneously of measures like remodelling of channels and also setting up of an institutionalised arrangements by which the drawal of water could be monitorial subserving the interests of all the channel ayacutdars. The Govt. have decided to regularise the unauthorised pumpsets with the above safeguards. 4. The Government accordingly direct that the unauthorised pumpsets installed on the banks of Rajakumarapalayam and Mohanur channel of River Cauvery in Salem District involving on ayacut of 7784 acres as detailed in Annexure I to this order be regularize? subject to the terms and conditions specified in Annexure II to this order and also subject to the following conditions. 4. The Government accordingly direct that the unauthorised pumpsets installed on the banks of Rajakumarapalayam and Mohanur channel of River Cauvery in Salem District involving on ayacut of 7784 acres as detailed in Annexure I to this order be regularize? subject to the terms and conditions specified in Annexure II to this order and also subject to the following conditions. i. The ayacutdars should organise themselves int Lift irrigation co-op., Societies. ii. The pumping should be in the name of co-op., Societies only. iii. The entire cost of remodelling improvements etc.,has to be borne by the ayacutdars. iv. The ayacutdars should fully co-op., with the Govt. in pegging the ayacut to the present level of 7784 acres without any further increase. 5. The Chief Engineer(I) is directed to send immediately an update plans and estimates for carrying out the improvements and remodelling of the aforesaid channel as a deposit work for approval of the Government. 6. The registrar of Co-op., societies and the Collector of Salem are directed to initiate action for the organization of Lift Irrigation co-op., societies, It is consider that organization of a limited number of large sized co-operative societies say three in number one each for the benefits of each channel ayacutdars would ensure effective and strict supervision, apart of their visibility in their operations. Action taken in this regard may be intimated to Govt. in due course. V. Sankarasubbiaya Commissioner and Secretary to Government ANNEXURE Channel Ayacut (in acres) Unauthorized Raja 5514.00 Kumarapalayam 1311.00 Mohanur 959.00 7784.00 (Seven thousand seven hundred and eighty four acres) 5. It is clear from the above Government Order that the Government wanted to regularize the unauthorized pump sets and for undertaking this exercise, certain conditions were imposed in Clause 4 of the Government Order. One of the main condition that was imposed was that the Ayacutdars should organize themselves into a lift irrigation co-operative society. Accordingly, Mohanur Vaikkal Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Ltd. was formed. There is absolutely no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner is also a member in this society. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it has been specifically stated that the benefit of the G.O. is applicable only to registered co-operative societies and not to any individual and that the petitioner is not a member in any society. 7. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it has been specifically stated that the benefit of the G.O. is applicable only to registered co-operative societies and not to any individual and that the petitioner is not a member in any society. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17724 of 2008 through an Order dated 2.12.2008 gave the following direction: “4. In view of the stand taken by third respondent- Chief Engineer, PWD, Trichy, in the aforesaid report, we are not inclined to pass any orders with regard to those whose ayacuts have been regularized by the State Government but so far as the remaining who have not formed the lift irrigation society and are drawing water by means of oil engines, for which no order of regularisation has been issued by the State, including the members of fifth respondent- Society (Sangam), the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take immediate steps prohibiting such irrigation from the Mohanur channel in question. Action may be taken preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 8. As per the directions given by this Court, action was initiated for prohibiting irrigation from the Mohanur Channel against unauthorized ayacut. Pursuant to the same, the impugned notice dated 2.11.2009 came to be issued by the 6th respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner was placing reliance upon the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6608 of 2002 dated 18.12.2009 and the relevant portions in the Order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted hereunder: “6. Since the regularization of the irrigation of the members of the petitioner Co-operative Society is in question and the regularization was kept in abeyance only on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner and its members to bear the cost of estimated charges, I am of the view that the second respondent should prepare an estimate of the actual charges to be incurred for remodelling the project and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pay the said amount. 7. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to estimate the cost for remodelling project and intimate the same to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to deposit the amount. 7. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to estimate the cost for remodelling project and intimate the same to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to deposit the amount. The execution of the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance till such estimate is given by the second respondent.” 10. The above direction came to be issued in the Writ Petition filed by the Mohanur Vaikkal Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Ltd. This direction will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner since the petitioner is an individual who does not satisfy the requirements under G.O.Ms.No.1588, dated 3.10.1988. Therefore, there is no question of regularizing the irrigation of the petitioner by lifting water from the Mohanur Canal. 11. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned notice was issued by the 6th respondent only based on the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same. 12. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.