Remanded

Bhavani Aatru Neer Pasana v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC18 Nov 2019WP/18672/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Chief Engineer to forward a pending proposal regarding lift irrigation for agricultural lands to the Government within four weeks. The first respondent (State) was directed to consider the request and pass orders within eight weeks, maintaining the status quo until then.

What did the court decide?

Directive action: Chief Engineer to forward proposal to Government within 4 weeks; Government to consider and pass orders within 8 weeks; status quo maintained till orders passed.

Bhavani Aatru Neer Pasana Vs State of Tamil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.18672 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶6

Bhavani Aatru Neer Pasana Vivasayigal Sangam regd . Society No.189/2003 represented by its Vice President Aalangombu Post, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District ... Petitioner

¶7

/vs/

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

The Chief Engineer (irrigation), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶10

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶11

The Superintendent Electrical Engineer(O & M) Coimbatore Distribution Circle-North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tatabad, Coimbatore.

¶12

Illuppanatham Grama Nugarvor, Pathukappu Mayam (Regd.No.5/2006) rep. by its President R.Kannappan, NO.6/60, Annadasampalayam, Sirumugai - 641 302, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents ( R6 impleaded as per order dated 04.07.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in M.P.1/11 in W[/18672/10)

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission for lift irrigation for agricultural purpose from Bhavani River to the members of the petitioner's association in respect of their patta agricultural lands situated at Nellithurai VIllage, Thekkampatti Village, Odanthurai VIllage, Sikkadasampalayam Village, Jadayampalayam Village, Pallayapalayam Village, Eeluppanatham VIllage, Irumbarai Village and Sirumugai Village (neighbouring villages) on the basis of various orders of the respondents herein.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Arun

¶15

For Respondents :Mr.R.Govindasamy, Spl. G.P., for R1 to R4

¶16

: Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, for R5 : No appearance, for R6

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission for lift irrigation for the agricultural purpose from the Bhavani river to the members of the petitioner's association.

¶19

According to the petitioner, the petitioner Association is a registered association consisting of farmers residing in nine villages at Mettupalayam Taluk and they are totally depending upon Bhavani river for irrigating their lands, and all the members of the petitioner are small farmers. Since their lands are situated in the banks of the Bhavani river, which is in higher level from water level, the water from river will not flow into their lands due to such elevation, and they can only irrigate their lands by way of lift irrigation. Earlier Government had given permission to various similarly placed agriculturist for lift irrigation in that area. Based on that the petitioner Sangam have also given representations to the respondents to grant permission to use lift irrigation to draw water from Bhavani River. Earlier, the third respondent Chief Engineer has collected particulars from the members of the petitioner and sent the same to the first respondent Government, thereafter, the Government has called the petitioner for enquiry on 22.01.2014, but so far no order has been passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

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

¶21

The third respondent, Chief Engineer filed a counter affidavit stating that a proposal has been sent to the Chief Engineer,PWD/WRO, Pollachi Region, Coimbatore, vide Superintending Engineer, PWD/WRO., Bhavani Basin Circle, Coimbatore in Lr.No.417cE/07/dated 02.11.2007 to consider the request of the petitioner at the Government level. But, the proposal has been returned by the Chief Engineer, Coimbatore for want of additional particulars, vide Chief Engineer's Lr.No.10622/06, dated 20.12.2007 and the additional particulars are being collected by the Field Officers. It is also stated that the prayer sought for by the petitioner can be considered only by the Government, as the Government is the competent authority to grant permission and the Chief Engineer has no authority for the same.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.

¶23

Even though the petitioner Sangam sought for a larger prayer seeking permission to grant a lift irrigation, on a perusal of the records, it could be seen that the petitioner's application is still under process and yet to reach the Government level, who is the authority to grant permission. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that, it is suffice that the Government may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders.

¶24

Considering the request, as the proposal is still pending with the third respondent and it was not sent to Government, the third respondent is directed to send the proposal to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's request and pass suitable orders, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Till the Government pass orders, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo as on date.

¶25

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

mrp

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3. The Chief Engineer (irrigation), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 4. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 5. The Superintendent Electrical Engineer(O & M) Coimbatore Distribution Circle-North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tatabad, Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.V.Arun , Advocate SR.No. 95360 +1cc to Mr.R.Thanjan , Advocate SR.No. 96383 A.SK(18/12/2019)

¶34

W.P.No.18672 of 2010

¶35

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

Bhavani Aatru Neer Pasana v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavani Aatru Neer Pasana v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.M.Chinnusamy Vs K.a.Periyasamy

D.Raja, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Palaniyammal Vs C.Kathiravan

D.Veerasekaran, Vs the Managing Director

Texel Industries Vs M/S.Export Credit Guarantee

K.Phoopathi Vs Senior Regional Manager