Dismissed

M.Lingasamy, v. the Collector

Madras HC17 Mar 2017WP/1754/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that prohibited petitioners from selling water from their agricultural well. Upholding the Revenue Officer's decision amidst water scarcity concerns, the Court held the order justified under the Tamil Nadu Ground Water Act, 2003.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order restricting commercial sale of tapped groundwater was upheld.

M.Lingasamy, Vs the Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.03.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.1754 of 2010 And M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

¶6

1.M.Lingasamy 2.Karuppusamy ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 2.The Tahsildar Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District. 3.T.N.Vevasaikazl Association Rep. by its Secretary Sundharam (R3 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 19.08.2010 made in M.P.No.3 of 2010 in W.P.No.1754 of 2010.)

¶7

4.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department (Groundwater) Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. (R4 impleaded suo motu as per order of this Court dated 27.08.2010 made in W.P.No.1754 of 2010) ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 10.12.2009 made in Pa.Mu.No.5880/2009/A1 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein, quash the same.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents: Mr.A.Zakir Hussain Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 10.12.2009 made in Pa.Mu.No.5880/2009/A1 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same.

¶14

2.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are having agricultural land jointly to the extent of 9.67 acres in RS No.394/3 (Old SF No.110) Sengapalli village from the year 1981. In the said land the petitioners are having a well, where, they got a service connection in SC No.994 for tapping water for agricultural purposes and other purposes. The petitioners' case is that since the requirement for the agricultural purpose is very limited, the excess water tapped from the well is being sold to private persons who are none other than the petitioners' close relatives.

¶15

3.The said action on the part of the petitioners since had been objected by the village people, as the water tapped for the agricultural purposes cannot be sold for any other commercial purposes, the petitioners had approached the competent Civil Court and filed O.S.No.267 of 2007 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Perundurai praying for permanent injunction. Though, initially, the suit was decreed exparte, subsequently, the said exparte order was set aside, and according to the petitioners, the suit is still pending before the said Court.

¶16

4.In the meanwhile, since the petitioners had been facing continuous objections, for tapping water and to sell the same for commercial purposes, from the village people, they had approached the Authorities concerned to get permission for the said purposes and the said request of the petitioners since had not been considered by the respondents, the petitioners had already approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.20853 of 2009 wherein, this Court by order dated 13.10.2009, directed the respondents therein, who are the Revenue Officials, including the Collector, to consider the said request of the petitioner and to pass orders, without going into the merits of the claim made in the said writ petition.

¶17

5.Only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, in the said writ petition of the petitioners, the second respondent after having heard the views of the petitioners as well as the objectors namely, the village people, had passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2009, whereby, the second respondent has

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

directed the petitioners not to tap water from their well for the purpose of selling it for commercial use. Challenging the said order of the second respondent dated 10.12.2009, the petitioners have approached this Court with the present writ petition.

¶20

6.Heard both sides.

¶21

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are having agricultural land to the extent of more than nine acres and since there are plenty of source of water available in the said lands which belongs to the petitioners, the excess water, apart from being used for agricultural purpose, can be utilized for the purpose of drinking and other essential purposes to the nearby localities and colonies. Therefore, the water is being given to only his relatives and the same is not being sold commercially, as claimed by the objectors from the village people.

¶22

8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that in view of the said tapping of the water being utilized for some other purposes other than the agricultural purposes and those purposes also are essential in nature, as drinking water is essential mandate for the people, the same cannot be found fault with the petitioners and therefore, the said practice cannot be curtailed by the respondents especially, the second respondent and therefore, the impugned order restraining the petitioners, from tapping water from their well to sell it for any other purposes other than agricultural purposes, is bad in law and therefore the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

¶23

9.Per contra, Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents draws the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. The learned Government Advocate would heavily rely upon the following averments in the said counter:

¶24

“Currently, the issue of implementation of the said Act is under active consideration of

¶25

the Government. In one petition Tmt.K.Poomani, has filed a Writ Petition against the order of restraining her from

¶26

taking and selling Ground Water from her well. In this case New Tiruppur Area Development Corporation Limited has filed a Writ Appeal. It is also brought to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Court that a W.A.No.923-926/2009 between the New Tiruppur Area Development Corporation Limited (NTADCL) versus Tmt.K.Poomani and others is pending in

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

the Court and while taking up the Writ Appeal, the learned judges have ordered, dated 28.7.2009 made in W.A.No.923-926/2009 as below:-

¶29

xxxx xxxx xxxx “Until further orders, the first respondent to each of the writ appeals may draw Ground Water from the respective wells for drinking purpose, household purpose or agricultural purpose, but shall not use the Ground Water for commercial purpose without prior order of the court”.

¶30

xxxx xxxx xxxx Also in the order dated 31.01.2011, the learned judges have directed as below:xxxx xxxx xxxx “In view of the above, in order to protect the Ground Water from the persons, who are using it for commercial purpose for gaining profit from the agriculturists in the State, who in turn, are suffering for lack of water not only for agricultural purposes but also for drinking purposes and also in the interest of public, we consider it appropriate to give a direction to the Government not to allow any person to draw and sell the Ground Water till the notification is issued. Accordingly there shall be a direction to the State Government, not to allow any person to draw and sell the Ground Water until the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act, 2003 is notified”. This was implemented on 6.4.2011 based on the opinion of Additional Advocate General – I. Accordingly no Ground Water Availability Certificate is considered by the department for installation of packaged Drinking water industry.”

¶31

10.By relying upon the said averments made by the fourth respondent, the learned Government Advocate would contend that there is already a direction by this Court as has been extracted in the above paragraphs of the above counter whereby, there was a clear direction that ground water shall not be used for commercial purposes. The said restriction was made till the notification or the Act namely, Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act, 2003. Infact, the said Act was notified and implemented from 06.04.2011. In view of the Act having been notified and has been implemented and also in view of the direction issued by this Court as referred to above, the petitioners do not have any right to sell water for

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

commercial purposes other than agricultural purposes for which they draw water from the well located in the agricultural land belong to the petitioners.

¶34

11.This Court has considered the said rival submissions made by both sides. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 10.12.2009, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, only for the purposes of commercial nature, transporting the water tapped from the well located in their agricultural land. In this regard, the following findings of the second respondent reflected in the impugned order can be very well taken into account:

¶35

“kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; bfhLf;fg;gl;l thf;FK:yj;jpy; fle;j 10 Mz;Lfshf j';fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l nkw;go fpuhkk; f/r/vz;/394-3 be/ g[yj;jpy; cs;s fpzw;W ePiu tptrhaj;jpw;F gad;gLj;jp tUtjhft[k;. cghp ePiu jpUkz kz;lgk;. filfs;. tPLfs; fl;Ltjw;Fk;. Xl;ly;fs;fs;. gdpad; fk;bgdpfs; Mfpatw;wpw;F FoePUf;fhf tH';fp tUtjhft [k; bjhptpj;Js;sdh;/ nkYk; nkw;go epWtd';fSf;F jdJ brhe;j ouhf;lh; K:ykhf (tz;o vz;/T.N. 49 5896) vGj;Jr; bry;tjhft[k; ,jw;bfd eilr;rPl;L (Trip Sheet) nghLtjpy;iy vd;Wk; bjhptpj;Js;sdh;/ //////////////////////////////// ,U jug;gpduJ thf;FK:y';fs; kw;Wk; fpuhk Mtz';fs; Mfpait ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;ld/ kDjhuh;fs; MH;FHha; mikj;Js;s g[y vz;/394-3 be/ fhiyiar; Rw;wp 12 tptrha g[y';fs; mike;Js;sd/ ,tw;wpy; bjd;id. thiH. kf;fhr nrhsk;. jPtdr; nrhsk nghd;w gaph;fs; gaphplg;gl;L tUfpwJ/ tptrha epy';fSf;F epyj;jo ePnu Kf;fpa MjhukhFk;/ epyj;jo ePiu ntW fhhpa';fSf;fhf. chp";;rp gad;gLj;Jk; bghGJ. Rw;Wg; g[w tptrha epy';fspy; ePh; Cw;W Fiwe;Jk;. bghJkf;fspd; mj;jpahtrpa FoePh; Mjhu';fs; Fiwa[k; mghak; Vw;gLk;/ vdnt bghJ kf;fSf;Fk; ePh; Mjhu';fSf;Fk; ghjpg;gila[k; tifapy; kDjhuhh;fs; fpzw;W ePiu yhhp K:yk; vLj;J tpepnahfk; bra;af;TlhJ vd ,jd; K:yk; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ”

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

12.Since number of agricultural lands are surrounded by the land belonging to the petitioners where agricultural crops like coconut, plantain and other plants are being produced, for the said purpose, if the ground water level goes down, then definitely it will have a direct bearing on the agricultural activities of the nearby land owners. Therefore, there is every justification on the part of the objectors/ village people against the petitioners for their commercial exploitation of ground water.

¶38

13.Moreover, in view of the said Act having been implemented, whatever be the purpose for which ground water is to be exploited, the same has to be done only in the manner as has been prescribed in that Act and without which, no one can claim untrammelled licence to tap water and to sell it for commercial purpose, unmindful of the water scarcity. Therefore, by considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that there is every justification on the part of the respondents especially, the second respondent in passing the impugned order and in that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶39

14.Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pri To 1.The Collector,Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 2.The Tahsildar, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District. 3.The Secretary,Government of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department (Groundwater) Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009. + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.17027 + 1 cc to Mr.N. Manokaran, Advocate SR.17002 + 1 cc to Mr.T. Gowthaman, Advocate Sr.17201

¶40

W.P.No.1754 of 2010 And M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 SVI(CO) EU 27.4.17

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Lingasamy, v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lingasamy, v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Mohanaruba, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Siva Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Maharaja Theme Park and Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep

The Management Elavadi Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

A.K.Arunachalam Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board

A.Manikandan, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu