Allowed

The Vashista Nadhi Water v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Mar 2023WP/12779/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Madras directed various respondents to finalize and publish draft rules governing the management of Kariyakoil and Anaimaduvu reservoirs within specified timelines, implementing recommendations made by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission regarding water flow maintenance for agricultural lands.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu/Engineer in Chief to finalize and publish draft rules for Kariyakoil reservoir within two months and Anaimaduvu reservoir within eight weeks; permission to ma

The Vashista Nadhi Water Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 01.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.12779 of 2015 and WMP.No.36278 of 2018 and MP.No.1 of 2015

¶7

The Vashista Nadhi Water Beneficiaries Society, Padayachiyur, Kalleeripatti (Post), Salem District, Rep. by its President

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.Engineer in Chief, PWD, Chepauk, Madras-5.

¶12

3.Chief Engineer, PWD/WRO Sarabanga Division, Trichy.

¶13

4.The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem.

¶14

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Sarabanga Basin Division, Namakkal.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶18

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur,

¶19

Salem District.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents to implement the recommendations made by the Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission in Case No.2882 of 2014 dated 19.12.2014 in toto, and to notify the draft Rules governing the management and functioning of the Kariakoil and Anaimaduvu reservoirs in Salem District, prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the SHRC and within a specified time frame in letter and spirit.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner in this writ petition is the Vashista Nadhi Water Beneficiaries Society. Their grievance is that the members of the society that was formed in 1994 are impacted greatly by the unavailability of water for agriculture. The society primarily caters to the issues faced by the residents in the upper reaches of the Vashista Nadhi.

¶26

2.According to them, two rivers namely, Kariakoil river commencing

¶27

from the Kalrayan hills and Anaimaduvu river commencing from the Kattukottai reserve forest join together at a particular point and form the Vashista Nadhi from that point onwards. The upper reaches of the Vashista

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶31

Nadhi starting from Kottavadi Anaicut to Peddanaickenpalayam Anaicut, which includes seven anaicuts, is the area under consideration and is referred to hereinafter, as the impacted area. This comprises, according to the petitioner, of around 2500 acres of agricultural land historically classified as wet lands, where cultivation of perennial crops is being undertaken. This area has been the beneficiary of water that was diverted from the Vashista Nadhi through various anaicuts and the residents of that area are wholly dependant on the same.

¶32

3.While this is so, there was a proposal under two Government Orders issued in 1982 i.e. G.O.Nos.841 and 983 sanctioning the construction of two reservoirs, the Kariakoil dam along with the Kariakoil river and the Anaimaduvu dam along with the Anaimaduvu river, at points situated around 20 kms before the water reached the impacted area.

¶33

4.My attention is drawn to letters dated 14.05.1980 and 08.07.1980 issued by the Board of Revenue (Food Production) stating that 'the construction of the reservoirs will be detrimental to the ayacut which is not adequately supplied with water even now'. The recommendations of this body was that the entire proposal should be dropped.

¶34

5.Writ Petitions had been filed, in WP.Nos.5452 of 1983 and 3479 of 1983, that were closed by order dated 05.07.1991, recording the assurance in a letter filed by the first respondent, the State, to the effect that the availability of

¶35

water will be copious. The petitioners were given liberty to approach this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

¶37

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶38

in case the statements made in that letter were not adhered to. The construction

¶39

of reservoirs was completed in 1992 and they have been operational since 1993.

¶40

6.Since the petitioners are of the categoric view that the undertaking given in the letters filed before this Court, were not adhered to, the president of the society approached the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and

¶41

after hearing both sides, the Commission passed an order on 19.12.2014 making the following recommendations:

¶42

'RECOMMENDATIONS

¶43

1.Given the urgency of the situation, it is strongly recommended that the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department/Engineer in Chief/Chief Engineer pass an Interim Order for the operation of the Two Reservoirs. This Interim Order should ensure that the flow of water in both the Impacted Rivers - Aanaimaduvu and Kariyakoil is always maintained until the requirements of the residents of the Impacted Region are fully met i.e. till it flows up to the Pethanaikan Palayam anaicut and then overflows. This was the intention of the 1983 Government Letter mentioned. This order should be passed immediately and water be released from the Two Reservoirs.

¶44

2 The Draft Rules governing the Two Reservoirs should reflect the following:

¶45

a. A monitoring station at Pethanaikan Palayam should be set up to monitor the flow of water from the Pethanaikan Palayam anaicut. Water management shall be done on a scientific basis under supervision of a person who is an expert in the field.

¶46

b. Natural flow of water in both Impacted Rivers should be maintained at all times until requirements of the direct and indirect old ayacut lands are met, and water starts to surplus at Pethanaikan Palayam anaicut.

¶47

c. Draft Rules of both Reservoirs should be prepared according to the above recommendations and both Reservoirs should have similar rules - not different rules (since both were

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶51

treated together in the 1983 Government Letter and there was a common judgment from the High Court applying to both Reservoirs).

¶52

d. Both the Draft Rules shall mention the names of all the old anaicuts upto Pethanaikan Palayam anaicut and also mention the extent of irrigation clearly. This is necessary, to give clarity to the extent of 'old ayacut lands,' and avoid confusion at a future date (as there seems to be small extents of old ayacut lands in the Aanaimaduvu river and Kariyakoil river close to the Impacted area in the Varshistanadhi).

¶53

3.A riverbed sluice should be provided in both the Reservoirs or there must be a foolproof mechanism to release water directly to the river.

¶54

4.The Salem District Collector should pass suitable orders to prevent illegal water pilferage upstream from the Petitioners in accordance with the Honourable High Court of Madras decisions in WA 1150/2003. Electricity Board officials should be given strict instruction to take appropriate action and to report to the Commission within 30 days on any action taken or proposed to be taken.

¶55

5. The Salem District Collector should pass suitable orders to prevent illegal sand quarrying in the riverbeds of the Impacted Rivers in accordance with the undertaking given to the High Court of Madras in WA 73/95. 6. The Public Works Department and the Salem District Collector should file a report with the Commission within 30 days on action taken or proposed to be taken in order to effect (1) to (5) above.

¶56

7. There has been a delay of over 22 years in the implementation of draft rules to govern the operation of the Two Reservoirs. This is an extraordinary and unreasonable delay. The Commission notes certain irregularities in this regard:

¶57

a. The first set of draft rules for Kariyakoil Reservoir was received by the Collector in September 2005. A second version of the draft rules was received in May 2011. In 2014, a third version of the same draft rules has been prepared. All three versions of draft rules, in substance, are similar. This simple process seems to have been unnecessarily dragged out for over 9 years.

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶61

b.The process for preparing the 2014 third version of draft rules was initiated by a letter from the Namakkal Executive Engineer that was dated February 2011. However, the Commission finds that the second version of the 2011 draft rules is dated March 2011. The Executive Engineer was clearly aware of the matter in February 2011 and could have discussed it with the Chief Engineer and addressed the issue in the March 2011 draft rules itself. Instead, they have delayed the process for another three years until 2014.

¶62

8. It is recommended that the Revenue Divisional Officer of Attur conduct camps in the Impacted Region (Kottavadi to Pethanaikan Palayam anaicut), receive petitions from the affected ayacut land owners, inquire or verify and prepare a report which in to be sent to the Government which will decide on the compensation to be awarded to the affected ayacut land owners.

¶63

Time for compliance..... One Month'

¶64

7.In light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Sathar v. Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George,

¶65

Chennai-600 009 and others (W.P.Nos.41791 of 2006 and batch dated 05.02.2021), the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission would be binding upon the authorities. However, in a matter such as the present, where the main grievance of the members of the society is that there are no riverbed sluices that have been provided in the dam, it remains to be seen as to whether such recommendation can be implemented.

¶66

8.According to the petitioner, had the sluices been provided at the level of the riverbed, the flow of water to the impacted area would not have been disturbed and would have continued as it was prior to the construction of the dams. The recommendations of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

¶68

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶69

Commission were made on 19.12.2014, twenty years after the construction of dams. As on date the respondents must ensure that the spirit of the order and recommendations are preserved and implemented as best possible as it is impossible to provide for sluices at the level of the riverbed post construction of the dam.

¶70

9.The prayer of the petitioner is for a mandamus directing the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission dated 19.12.2014 in toto and to notify the draft rules governing the management and functioning of the Kariyakovil Anaimaduvu reservoirs in Salem District in line with the recommendations as aforesaid.

¶71

10.Pending writ petition, a status report has been filed by the 5th respondent, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, to the effect that the draft rules of the Kariyakovil reservoir had been published on 18.01.2018. Despite the elapse of five years, the draft rules are yet to be finalized and they are stated to be pending approval before the Public Works Department.

¶72

11.A direction is issued to R1 to finalise and publish the rules relating to Kariyakovil reservoir within a period of two (2) months from date of receipt of copy of this order. As regards the Anaimaduvu reservoir, publication will be

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶76

effected within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order after hearing the petitioner.

¶77

12.That apart and dehors the observations in the preceding paragraphs of this order, the narration in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner/its member have been approaching this Court repeatedly, in WP.No.3136 of 1994, WA.Nos.73 of 1995, 1929 of 1996, 34578 of 2002 and WA.No.1150 of 2003.

¶78

13.The present writ petition is of the year 2015 which shows that even as in 2015 the grievances of the petitioner have not been redressed. In all the writ petitions/appeals as aforesaid, the orders of closure by this Court record the assurance of the respondents that the needful would be done to secure free flow of water to the extent possible to the farmers in the impacted area.

¶79

14.One suggestion that has emanated from the petitioner is to increase the capacity of the channels that carry water from the Reservoir directly to the impacted area. As to whether this suggestion is practical, I leave to the authorities to decide.

¶80

15.Petitioner is permitted to make a request in this regard before the Chief Engineer, Sarabanga Division/R3 and such request, if and when received, will be addressed by him, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of the request.

¶81

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

¶82

¶83

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶84

16.This writ petition is disposed in terms of this order. No costs.

¶85

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶86

01.03.2023

¶87

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes vs

¶88

¶89

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶90

2.Engineer in Chief, PWD, Chepauk, Madras-5.

¶91

3.Chief Engineer, PWD/WRO Sarabanga Division, Trichy.

¶92

4.The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem.

¶93

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Sarabanga Basin Division, Namakkal.

¶94

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur, Salem District.

¶95

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

¶96

¶97

WP.No.12779 of 2015

¶98

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶99

¶100

W.P.No.12779 of 2015 and WMP.No.36278 of 2018 and MP.No.1 of 2015

¶101

01.03.2023

¶102

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

¶103

The Vashista Nadhi Water v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Vashista Nadhi Water v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atria Wind (Kadambur) P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

S.Shanmugavadivu Vs The District Collector

Kandasamy Vs Mr. T. Murugan, B.E.

K. Chiranjeevi Vs Union of India

A.Elangovan Vs The Additional District

M/s.Victor Guedes Industria Vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade