Disposed

Rajangam.P.K v. the District Magistrate (Collector)

Madras HC23 Nov 2022WP(MD)/2079/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer to inspect the Maraiyur waterbodies, ascertain if encroachments blocking the supply channel persist, and take necessary action to remove them with assistance from other relevant authorities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 5 and 6 to inspect waterbodies, ascertain encroachments, and take appropriate action to remove them with assistance of other respondents.

Rajangam.P.K Vs the District Magistrate (Collector) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2022

P.K.Rajangam

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The District Magistrate (Collector), Virudhunagar.

¶13

The Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar.

¶14

The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶18

The Tahsildar, Tiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(WRO), Gundaru Basin Division, Madurai.

¶20

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), Gundaru Basin Division, Madurai.

¶21

The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶22

The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Narikudi.

¶23

Maraiyur Villagers, Rep. by Mr.Malaiyarasan, S/o.Chellaiah, Maraiyur Village, Narikudi Post, Tiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 9^th respondent from blocking the crust of the Maraiyur Kanmoi and consequently, directing the official respondents to restore the Weirs of the Maraiyur Kanmoi and the water canal till the Sethurayanendal Kanmoi.

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R6 Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R7 & R8 Mr.M.Thangapandian for R9 Mr.M.Karuppasamy Advocate Commissioner

¶30

ORDER

¶31

[Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]

¶32

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue

¶33

a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 9^th respondent from blocking the crust of the Maraiyur Kanmoi and consequently, directing the official respondents to restore the Weirs of the Maraiyur Kanmoi and the water canal till the Sethurayanendal Kanmoi.

¶34

Heard Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for

¶35

Page 3 of 8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶38

the respondents 1 to 6; Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 7 and 8; Mr.M.Thangapandian, learned counsel appearing for the 9^th respondent and Mr.M.Karuppasamy, learned Advocate Commissioner.

¶39

Earlier, on 15.11.2022, this Court appointed Mr.M.Karuppasamy, learned counsel as an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the actual position of the Maraiyur Kanmoi.

¶40

Based on the above directions of this Court, learned Advocate Commissioner, after conducting a physical inspection on the aforesaid waterbody with the assistance of the revenue officials, submitted a detailed report along with photographs before this Court. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:-

¶41

“On the physical inspection, perusal of records and enquiry from the aged people of the both side villages and personnel of the Official Respondents, I come to conclusion that there was a "Pa" Kaadi structure in the disputed eastern side weir of the Maraiyur tank before the year of 1984 for free overflowing of surplus water to

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶45

the Sethurayanendal tank and later which was completely blocked by raising construction. Further there is an encroachment on the Sy.Nos. 267/5A, 6, 4C2A, 4C2B, 4C1, 4A, 267/2 of the supply channel which is adjacent to the Thiruchuli to Parthibanur Road, hence, the said supply channel from Maraiyur tank to Sethurayanedal tank is also completely blocked. Unless the blockage on the eastern side weir of the Maraiyur tank and the encroachment on the above said survey numbers be removed, the surplus water could not be reached the Sethurayanendal tank. Further the PWD has to restore the Original "Pa" Kaadi in its original position then only the overflowing of surplus water will reach the next beneficiary tanks i.e., Sethurayanendal tank and then Naganendal tank as mentioned in the Revenue Records as well as in the (PWD) WRO records.”

¶46

Perusal of the above report shows that there was a "Pa" Kaadi structure in the disputed eastern side weir of the Maraiyur tank before the year of 1984, for free overflowing of surplus water to the Sethurayanendal tank, however, due to raised construction therein, the free flow of surplus water was completely blocked. Further, it is also categorically stated that there are encroachments in Survey Nos.267/5A, 6, 4C2A, 4C2B, 4C1, 4A, 267/2 of the supply channel situated adjacent to Thiruchuli to Parthibanur Road, which

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶50

resulted in complete blockage of the said supply channel from Maraiyur tank to Sethurayanedal tank.

¶51

Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 5 and 6, to inspect the aforesaid waterbodies and ascertain as to whether the encroachments in the aforesaid supply channel are still existing and if so, appropriate action shall be taken to remove the same with the assistance of respondents 1, 7 and 8, after considering the objections, if any, of the 9^th respondent – Villagers and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and all other parties concerned and also by following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

¶52

[R.M.D., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]

¶53

23.11.2022

¶54

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pkn

¶55

Note : Issue order copy tomorrow (24.11.2022)

¶56

Page 6 of 8

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶59

¶60

The District Magistrate (Collector), Virudhunagar.

¶61

The Additional District Magistrate cum District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar.

¶62

The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶63

The Tahsildar, Tiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶64

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(WRO), Gundaru Basin Division, Madurai.

¶65

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), Gundaru Basin Division, Madurai.

¶66

The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶67

The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Narikudi.

¶68

Page 7 of 8

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.P.(MD) No.2079 of 2022

¶71

R.MAHADEVAN, J. AND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶72

pkn

¶73

W.P.(MD)No.2079 of 2022

¶74

23.11.2022

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rajangam.P.K v. the District Magistrate (Collector)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajangam.P.K v. the District Magistrate (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

Rajam.K Vs the Dist. Collector

Angusamy Vs the District Collector

M.Shajahan Vs the Commissioner

Sivamani. P Vs The Chief Engineer

Jothi.R Vs the District Collector

Chelladurai.S Vs the District Collector