V.Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Muu.Mu.No.1734/2023/Al dated 14.02.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to recognize the sluice gate in petitioner’s land in S.No.234, 233/2B, 232, Thungavi Village, Maduthukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District, as per recommendation of the 3rd respondent in Letter No. Va.Pa-2/Ko,17/76(A)”/2016 dated 21.04.2017 and Va.Pa/Va-2/Ko,l7/278/2017 dated 26.10.2017.

¶17

: For petitioner Mr. A.K.Kumarasamy Senior Counsel For Ms. J.Prithivi For respondents : Mr. R.L.Karthika Government Advocate

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶20

“To call for the records in Muu.Mu.No.1734/2023/Al dated 14.02.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to recognize the sluice gate in petitioner’s land in S.No.234,

¶21

2/8

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.14153 of 2024

¶24

233/2B, 232, Thungavi Village, Maduthukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District, as per recommendation of the 3rd respondent in Letter No. Va.Pa-2/Ko,17/76(A)”/2016 dated 21.04.2017 and Va.Pa/Va-2/Ko,l7/278/2017 dated 26.10.2017.”

¶25

The petitioner would submit that he is the rightful owner of agricultural lands in Thungavi Village, Maduthukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District and the said lands are ayacut lands irrigated through Amaravathi River Basin Project

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that due to frequent disturbances created by adjacent land owners, the petitioner and other land owners were constrained to construct temporary sluice gates, so as to save their crops and irrigate lands. The petitioner would further submit that a meeting was conducted and presided by the 1^st respondent on 07.08.2015, pursuant to which the 3^rd respondent conducted a thorough field inspection in the year 2017 and it was found that a shutter gate No.2 (left) is located in the lands belonging to one Mahalingam and the lower basin owners were not provided with water due to above said 3/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.14153 of 2024

¶29

Mahalingam's frequent disputes with the petitioner and other lands owners.

¶30

The petitioner would contend that during inspection, the 3^rd respondent noted that a new sluice gate in the main sluice gate in the petitioner’s land was constructed to overcome the difficulty caused by the said Mahalingam. The new sluice gate is located in the petitioner’s land and about 8.50 acres of land is irrigated and if the new sluice gate

¶31

in the petitioner’s land is closed, the lands will not be irrigated. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent had recommended to recognize the temporary shutters in the petitioner’s land by his letters dated 21.04.2017 and 26.10.2017. However, the respondents are not inclined

¶32

to amend the revenue records as per the recommendation of the 3^rd respondent.

¶33

The petitioner would submit that he has submitted his representation in person and as the same was not considered, he had filed W.P.No.35104 of 2022. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order stating that no recommendations were received from 4/8

¶34

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

¶35

the 3 rd

¶36

W.P.No.14153 of 2024

¶37

the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶38

The learned Government Advocate would submit that they did

¶39

not even have the application that has been allegedly submitted by the petitioner on 09.12.2022.

¶40

Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

¶41

The impugned order has been passed on 14.02.2024.

¶42

In paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue

¶43

Divisional Officer, Udumalpet, Tiruppur, it is stated as follows:

¶44

“It is humbly submitted that though the Hon’ble High

¶45

Court ordered for considering the petition in its order

¶46

WP.No.35104 of 2022, the petitioner was called for enquiry

¶47

for 2 times on 14.02.2024 and 14.03.2024.”

¶48

This Court at loss to understand how after the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner could be called for an enquiry. 5/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.14153 of 2024

¶51

In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed. The

¶52

respondents are directed to consider a fresh the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2022. In the light of the fact that the respondents now contend that they have not received the representation dated 19.12.2022, the petitioner is directed to once again send an application dated 19.12.2022, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondents shall pass orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as other interested parties and pass orders within a period of 3 weeks therefrom.

¶53