Petitioners challenged interference with water drawing for agriculture in a dry river bed. The court held that providing drinking water is paramount and pumping for irrigation in lean seasons affects drinking water schemes.
Relief sought for directing respondents not to interfere with drawing water for agriculture is not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22-10-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.12874 of 2013
And MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
| 1. S.Shankar | |
|---|---|
| 2. S.Govindarashu | |
| 3. R.Chinnaiyan | |
| 4. T.Chakkarapani | |
| 5. C.Veerasamy | |
| 6. K.Palanivelu | |
| 7. K.Arumugam | |
| 8. K.K.Balaji Vasenth | |
| 9. M.Rajammal | |
| 10.S.Devarajan | |
| 11.T.Thirumoorthy | |
| 12.S.R.Senthil Kumar | |
| 13.R.Lakshmi | |
| 14.K.Palanivel | |
| (Petitioners 6 to 14 are impleaded as per | |
| order of Court dated 31.08.2015 made | |
| in MP No.1 of 2015 in WP No.12874 of 2013) | |
| .. Petitioners | |
| vs. | |
| 1. State of Tamil Nadu, | |
| Represented by its District Collector, | |
| Salem District, Salem. |
|
| 2. The Superintending Engineer, Sarabanga Basin (WRO) Water, |
|
| Resource Organisation, | |
| Public Works Department, | |
| Salem. | |
| 3. The Executive Engineer, | |
| Sarabanga Basin (WRO) Water | |
| Resource Organisation, | |
| Public Works Department, Salem. |
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the drawing of available water for agriculture and its allied activities.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Shyam Sunder
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate.
O R D E R
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents not to interfere with the drawing of available water for agriculture and its allied activities.
2. The grievances of the petitioners are that they are owning patta lands in the Banks of River Vasista (Sarabanga Basin), which is a dry river and only during rainy season, there will be water flow. After construction of Kariya Kovil PWD Dam and Periyeri Check Dam Project, there is no water flow in the river for the purpose of irrigation.
3. The petitioners state that the lands are situated in the Ayakattu area and only the seepage water will come in the river, if water is available in the Check Dam. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer PWD, Water Resource Organisation, Sarabanga Basin Sub-Division, Attur, filed counter-affidavit stating that Vasista Nadhi is not a perennial river, so pumping for irrigation (the river bed) will spoil the drinking water pumping schemes in the river sides of Vasista Nadhi in lean season. The dearth of water in these tanks is only due to successive monsoon failures and not due to construction of the reservoirs.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons stated in the counter-affidavit are convincing. River Vasista is not a perennial river and only during the rainy
season water flow will be available. Undoubtedly, the Authorities have to regulate the distribution of water in a judicious manner.
6. The respondents have stated that in the event of allowing any pumping for irrigation, the same will affect the drinking water facility to be provided to the people of that locality.
7. Providing drinking water is the paramount importance and preference must always for providing drinking water to the people of that locality. Excess water alone is to be used for irrigation purposes and other activities.
8. When the respondents have stated that they are providing drinking water facilities from the dry river through pumping, the similar facility cannot be provided for irrigation purposes, which will affect the drinking water to be supplied to the people of that locality.
9. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the relief sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. If abundant flow of water is available, naturally the petitioner will get water for irrigation purposes and pumping in the dry river will cause damage to the drinking water facilities to be provided to the people of that locality by the Authorities .
10. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Lok Adalat)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Svn
To
| 2. The Superintending Engineer, Sarabanga Basin (WRO) Water, Resource Organisation, Public Works Department, Salem. |
|---|
| 3. The Executive Engineer, Sarabanga Basin (WRO) Water, Resource Organisation, Public Works Department, Salem. |
| 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur Taluk, Salem District. |
| 5. The Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Salem District. |
| +2ccs to Mr.K.Shyam Sunder, Advocate, S.R.No.54330 |
| +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.55116 |
| WP 12874 of 2013 |
SSV(CO) SU(10/11/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing authorities not to interfere with drawing water for agriculture.
Whether pumping for irrigation in a dry river bed affects drinking water facilities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Shankar
S.Govindarashu
R.Chinnaiyan
State of Tamil Nadu
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
