High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Works Act directing the petitioner to restore a field boothie on her land intercepted from a canal to irrigate the respondent-owner's land. Bench found no illegality.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 : 04.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P. No.21103 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.24758 & 24759 of 2018
Deivasundari,
W/o. T.R.Eswaramoorthy
...Petitioner
5 T.N.Rajendran, President, Thottipalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Thottipalayam, Bhavani, Erode Dt. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his office proceedings No.Na.28999/2017/A1, dated 06.07.2018 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent vide No.Mu.Mu.3707/2017 A1, dated 04.10.2017 directing the 3rd respondent to form the field boothies in the petitioner's land in R.S.No.504/4, 5, 6 of Bhavani-B Village, Erode District and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in R.S.No. 504/4, 5, 6 in Bhavani-B Village, Erode District.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.S.Premkumar, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr.R.Subburaj for R5
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents under Sec.3 of Tamil Nadu Irrigation Works (Construction of Field boothies) Act, 1959, directing the petitioner to restore field boothie, which alleged to have been destroyed by the petitioner.
the authorities, there was no field boothie, which was ended in the petitioner's land. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and during enquiry, the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer also called for report from the Executive Engineer, Public Works department, Mettur dam canal division. The report of Executive Engineer, Mettur Dam canal Sub-Division, Komarapalayam and the report of Tahsildar, Bhavani shows that the 5th respondent owned an extent of 3.62 acres of land in R.S.No.513/1,2B in Bhavani-B Village. It is an ayacut land in Mettur Dam canal division. He has been availing water for irrigation through sluice in the branch canal in R.S.No. 510 and the water was being emerged from the above sluice flows through the canal in R.S.No.511/1,2, 507/8, 7,2, 504/5, 4, 6 and finally, reached the land of the 5th respondent in R.S.No.513/1, 2B. The petitioner has destroyed the field boothie existed in R.S.No.513/1, 2 and not permitting the 5th respondent to receive water from the canal. Considering all those materials, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to restore the field boothie. Against which, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the 1st respondent District Collector and the 1st respondent, after calling for the report from the Public Works Department and revenue authorities and considering the submissions of the petitioner and the 5th respondent came to a conclusion that if the field boothie formed through the petitioner's land in R.S.No.504, it would be beneficial and the water will flow freely to R.S.No.513, and dismissed the appeal.
the public works department as well as revenue authorities, has rightly came to a conclusion that, it is only the petitioner has obliterated the field boothie and there is no illegality in it.
“the technical opinion given by the Public Works Department was taken into consideration. In the technical opinion, it was stated that the measurement of the level of the irrigated lands getting the water from the left side of the sluice at the mile point of 0-6-60 of the II Branch diverted from the mile point of 1-4-220 of the Branch canal which diverted from the mile point of 1-5-555 of the tail end canal are as follows :-
=
Basement length of outside hole of the 180.435 meter sluice is =
The high level area of the irrigated lands 174.470 meter =
The lower level area of the irrigated lands 173.380 meter =
If the water draws for the land R.S.No.513 by forming Kuppu Vaikkal it is possible to give the water at the ground level of (+)174.470. If these arrangements are made the entire lands could get the water for irrigation as stated by Thiru T.N.Rajendran. If Koppu Vaikkal forms through the R.S.No.505 for rawing the water as stated by Tmt. T.E.Deivasundari the ground level is stood (+) 173.380 meter. If the arrangements will made the water will not lead to the ground level of (+) 174.470 meter. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam has recommended that if the koppu vaikkal formed through the land R.S.No.504 it will be given benefit to lead the water to the land in R.S.No.513. Based on the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the technical opinion given by the authority of the Public Works Department, the order dated 04.07.2017 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalaym was confirmed.”
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned revenue authorities applied their mind to the materials and did not commit illegality in passing the order directing the petitioner to restore the field boothie.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deivasundari
T.N.Rajendran
The District Collector, Erode Dt.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam
The Revenue Tahsildar, Bhavani
The Executive Engineer, PWD, Mettur
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
