Dismissed

H.v.Munidevarao v. The chief Engineer

Madras HC24 Mar 2022WP/42288/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order including agricultural land in ayacut, the Madras High Court examined if the construction/renovation of an irrigation channel through the petitioner's land caused infringement, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

H.v.Munidevarao Vs The chief Engineer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.NO.42288 OF 2016 AND W.M.P.NOS.36192 & 36193 OF 2016

¶6

H.V.Munidevarao ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The Chief Engineer,

¶9

P.W.D, W.R.O., Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶10

The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Upper Pennaiyar Basin Division, Collectorate, Dharmapuri.

¶12

The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Upper Pennaiyar Basin Sub Division, Hosur Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Command area development works, Dharmapuri Division. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER:-

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in proceedings NO.546MF.100/16/ D2/dated 21.10.2016 purported to be issued to include as ayacut under D1 Sluice No.27 of Left Main Canal and quash the same.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anantha Kumar

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham Special Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent/Executive Engineer including the extent of 17.689 hectares of land in Addaguriki Village, under the Kelavarapally Reservoir Project.

¶21

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land in Survey No.3/2 of Addaguriki Village and his land has been included in the Ayacut of Kelavarapally Reservoir Project. By virtue of the impugned order, an extent of 17.689 hectors of agricultural land, which is situated just below to the petitioner's land have been included in the Ayacut on the ground that the respondents are constructing a new water channel to irrigate the newly added Ayacut under Sluice No.27 in the above Kelavarappalli left main canal. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is irrigating his land through sluice No.27 and no water channel has been in existence in his land. Now, the authorities are trying to construct a new Channel at the length of nearly 250 meters, without initiating any acquisition proceedings, thereby depriving the petitioner's right in the property. In the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that, the petitioner's land in Survey No.3, is situated near the Sluice No.27, in the Left Main Canal and now by virtue of the impugned order an extent of 17.689 hectares of landhave been included in the Ayacut. Earlier, the newly added ayacut land owners have been irrigating their lands even before forming the reservoir through a field bothie along the margin of the the petitioner's land in Survey No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner has closed the channel. After inclusion of the above said extent in the ayacut, now the authorities only restores the then existing field bothie and they are not forming any new channel as claimed by the petitioner. As the petitioner has closed the existing field bothie, thereby, depriving the agricultural lands below the petitioner's land, the authorities reconstructed the closed channel. That apart, including the non-existence of land in the ayacut, only minimum water will be used by them and it is

¶23

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

¶24

no way affect the petitioner's land.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that right from the construction of reservoir, no water channel has been available in the petitioner's land. Only after including the new agricultural lands in the Ayacut, the authorities formed the new water channel through his land and that is affecting his right. He further submitted that none of the revenue records shows the existence of the water channel in the petitioner's land and it is only a new channel, which was formed without following due process of law. Hence, the impugned order is to be set aside.

¶26

The learned counsel Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that, even before the construction of reservoir, there was a field bothie in the petitioner's land. Thereafter, taking advantage of the fact that other lands were not included in the ayacut, the petitioner has closed the channel and after inclusion of the lands in the ayacut, now, the authorities restored the then existing water channel and they have not formed any new channel as alleged by the petitioner.

¶27

The main grievance of the petitioner is that after including some extent of lands in ayacut, the respondents forming the new channel through the land of the petitioner to irrigate the newly added ayacut lands. From the perusal of the counter affidavit, it could be seen that originally, a field bothie was available in the petitioner's land, which is extended to the newly included ayacut lands, now they are getting water through that channel. Before forming the scheme, the lands were not included in the ayacut and they could not get water through that field bothie, taking advantage of the same, the petitioner said to have closed it. Now, on the request of the agriculturist the 3^rd respondent passed by the impugned order, thereby including their lands in the ayacut and consequently, to irrigate their lands, they restored the field bothie, which was existing in the petitioner's land. It is an admitted fact that, the newly added ayacut lands are just below the petitioner's land and there is no other water channel available to irrigate their lands, and it is also clear that only through the petitioner's land, they had irrigated their lands, which has been blocked by the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner is not having any other grievance for including those lands in the ayacut and this Court finds no merits in this Writ Petition and inclined to dismiss the writ petition.

¶28

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

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

	Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
1.	The Chief Engineer, P.W.D, W.R.O., Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.	The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3.	The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Upper Pennaiyar Basin Division, Collectorate, Dharmapuri.
4.	The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Upper Pennaiyar Basin Sub Division, Hosur Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
5.	The Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Command area development works, Dharmapuri Division.
+1cc	to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No.20614

¶33

W.P.NO.42288 OF 2016

¶34

SKM(CO) PBS/24/05/2022

¶35

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

H.v.Munidevarao v. The chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.v.Munidevarao v. The chief Engineer

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

S.Mohamed Yousuf Vs M/s.Y.Son and Co.

Y Son and Co. Vs The Secretary to Government

Ocean Bricks and Blocks Vs The Chairman and Managing

P.Gnanasekaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.S.Murugesan Vs Ministry of Petroleum and

Poongavanam Vs The Superintending Engineer