Dismissed¶34

G.Venkadasamy v. The District Collector

Writ of Mandamus – Borewell relocation – Consideration of representation

Madras HC25 Nov 2025WP(MD)/16207/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; W.P(MD)No.16207 of 2019; writ of mandamus; Article 226; borewell relocation; groundwater depletion; village panchayat resolution 07.11.2018; administrative sanction 02.02.2019; work order 18.02.2019; Survey No.126/3; public drinking water supply; Pitchaithalaivanpatti Panchayat; Kurivikulam Union Panchayat; Tirunelveli; representation dated 06.06.2019; dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

From the materials on record it is evident that the borewell in question was erected pursuant to resolutions passed by the Village Panchayat and after obtaining administrative sanction from the District Collector, and the work stands completed. ¶29

G.Venkadasamy Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2019 seeking relocation of the borewell erected by the third respondent. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

In view of the above, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed, with no costs.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶29

Key takeaways

As specifically stated by the respondents, the borewell is situated in Survey No.126/3 and is intended for public drinking water supply.ratio¶29
The petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate the allegation that the borewell has been erected in his land or that it violates any statutory provision.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Mandamus – Borewell relocation – Consideration of representation – Dismissed. The petitioner, cultivating paddy in S.No.104/8 (Patta No.296), alleged that a borewell erected by the third respondent about 30 feet from his own borewell caused depletion of groundwater, vibration, blockage of his borewell and obstruction to a pathway used by villagers, and sought consideration of his representation dated 06.06.2019 for relocating the borewell. Per the counter affidavit, the Village Panchayat resolved in its ordinary meeting dated 07.11.2018 to sanction a new borewell; administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 02.02.2019, a work order issued on 18.02.2019, and the borewell completed to a depth of 300 feet by the second week of May 2019; it was erected in Survey No.126/3 for public drinking water purposes, and relocation after completion was stated to be infeasible and likely to result in substantial loss to public funds. Held: the borewell was erected pursuant to panchayat resolutions and administrative sanction and stands completed; it is situated in Survey No.126/3 and intended for public drinking water supply; the petitioner produced no material to substantiate the allegation that it was erected in his land or violated any statutory provision. Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16207 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.16207 of 2019

G.Venkadasamy

..Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Panchayat Union,

¶12

Kurivikulam Union Panchayat, Kurivikulam, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

3.The Executive Officer,

¶14

The Office of Pitchaithalaivanpatti Panchayat, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 06/06/2019 seeking to replace the borewell place where already erected by the 3rd respondent to some other place where in which no harm and cause to any people of the village.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.16207 of 2019

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu

¶21

For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Govt. Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.06.2019, wherein the petitioner sought relocation of the borewell already erected by the third respondent to some other place so as to avoid the alleged hardship to the villagers.

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural land in Survey No.104/8, bearing Patta No.296, where he has been cultivating paddy for several years. According to the petitioner, owing to failure of monsoon and water scarcity, he erected a borewell in his land to save the standing crop. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent erected another borewell at a distance of about 30 feet from the petitioner’s borewell, resulting in depletion of groundwater, vibration and blockage of the petitioner’s borewell, and obstruction to a pathway used by villagers to access the paddy fields. Alleging that the erection of the borewell has caused hardship to him and other villagers, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.06.2019 seeking relocation of the borewell. As no response was forthcoming, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.16207 of 2019

¶28

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Village Panchayat convened an ordinary meeting on 07.11.2018 and passed resolutions, sanctioning the erection of a new borewell. Based on the said resolution, administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 02.02.2019, and a work order was issued on 18.02.2019. The borewell was completed up to a depth of 300 feet by the second week of May 2019. It is further stated that the borewell has been erected in Survey No.126/3 for public drinking water purposes and not in Survey No.104/8, as alleged by the petitioner. Since the work has already been completed after obtaining all necessary approvals, relocation of the borewell is not feasible and would result in substantial loss to public funds.

¶29

From the materials placed on record, it is evident that the borewell in question was erected pursuant to resolutions passed by the Village Panchayat and after obtaining administrative sanction from the District Collector. The borewell work stands completed. It is also specifically stated by the respondents that the borewell is situated in Survey No.126/3 and is intended for public drinking water supply. The petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate the allegation that the borewell has been erected in his land or that it violates any statutory provision.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.16207 of 2019

¶33