Reguraman, v. The Secretary to Government

1 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.10646 of 2008 & 1352 of 2016 AND M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 & W.M.P.(MD)No.1133 of 2016 W.P.(MD)No.10646 of 2008 Reguraman

... Petitioner Vs.

¶1The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶3The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶4The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai.

¶5V.Arumuga Thevar

¶6The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Department, Lower Vaigai Basin Circle, Sivagangai.

(R-6 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 24.08.2022) ... Respondents 2 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Pa.Mu.E4.52708/07 dated 30.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh regarding the sharing of water releasing from the dividing dam constructed in S.No.171/2 of Nelmudikarai Village across the Karisal Vaikkal, Mettu Vaikkal, Mavadipatcheri Vaikkal, Nainarpettai Vaikkal and take necessary action in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For R-1 to R-4 & R-6 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by, Mr.N.GA.Natraj, Government Advocate. For R-5 : Mr.S.Visvalingam * * * W.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2016 R.Sivakumar

... Petitioner Vs.

¶1The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008

¶2The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶3The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(WRO), Saruguni Division, Sivagangai.

¶4P.Reguraman (R-4 is impleaded vide order dated 04.04.2016 in W.M.P.(MD)No.5025 of 2016)

5.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Department, Lower Vaigai Basin Circle, Sivagangai.

(R-5 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 24.08.2022) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Roc.No.G1/19016/2021 dated 18/11/2022 and consequently direct the respondents to implement the order of the second respondent in Pa.Mu.E4.52708/2007 dated 30/10/2008 . (Prayer amended vide Court Order dated 28.08.2023 in WMP(MD).No. 21038/2022) For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For R-1 to R-3 & R-5 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by, Mr.N.GA.Natraj, Government Advocate. * * * 4 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 C O M M O N O R D E R

i) W.P.(MD)No.10646 of 2008 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶2The petitioner had questioned the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, with regard to sharing of water from Nelmudikarai Kanmoi. During the pendency of the writ petition, a fresh proceeding has been issued by the Government. Nothing survives for further consideration. This writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

ii) W.P.(MD)no.1352 of 2016

¶3This writ petition has been originally filed for implementing the proceedings dated 30.10.2008 issued by the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. During the pendency of the writ petition, the District Collector issued fresh 5 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 proceedings dated 18.11.2022. The villagers of Nainarpettai felt that it was adverse to their interest. Hence, the prayer of the writ petition was modified.

¶4When the matter was taken up for hearing on

11.09.2023, the following order was passed:- " Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶2The learned Additional Advocate General states that the Engineer-in-Chief will personally inspect the irrigation system in question today itself. He is called upon to convene the meeting of all the stake holders at 04.00 pm., today itself. The meeting will be convened at Nelmudikarai Village itself.

During

the

said

meeting,

the representatives

of

Nelmudikarai

Village, Nainarpettai Village, Kaliyandoor Village, Karisalvaikkal

Ayacutdhar,

Mettuvaikkal 6 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 Ayacutdhar & Mavadipacheri Ayacutdhar can be present.

The

counsel

representing

the stakeholders are present in person before this Court. They are requested to intimate the respective villagers right now. The stakeholders apart from making oral submission can also give their representations in writing to the Engineer-in-Chief. He shall submit his report to the Government within one week. The Government shall pass order on or before 25.09.2023. The order to be passed by the Government shall be served by the Additional Government Pleader to the learned counsel appearing for the stakeholders.

¶3Call this case on 27.09.2023. "

¶5I am happy to record that thanks to the learned Additional Advocate General the direction given by this Court has been complied with in letter and spirit. The inspection was conducted by the Engineer-in-Chief himself and all the stakeholders were heard. Thereafter, a revised water sharing 7 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 arrangement had been arrived at. A copy of the same has been produced before me. The Government had accepted the report of the Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer (General), Water Resources Department, Chennai and issued the communication bearing letter (Ms)No.70/S2/2023 dated

26.09.2023. The operative portion of the communication reads as follows:- " 2. After detailed examination, the Government have decided to accept the views of the Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer(General), Water Resources Department, Chennai and arrived following conclusions:- 1) The total ayacut of 4th sluice is 1323.75 acre. There are two vent 0.90 m x 0.35 m which is adequate to feed 399.03 acres and 1.60m x 0.35m with crest level of +106 710m is not adequate to feed ayacut area of 4 channels 942.72 acre. Hence additional vent of size 0.50 m x 0.35 m is required for the Nainarpettai channel ayacut of 221.48 acres. 2) Now vent of size 0.50 m x 0.35 m shall be provided separately for Nainarpettai channel in the rear cistern of tank sluice 4 at rear end wall of cistern (East side). 3) A new dividing wall shall be provided to separate 8 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 Nainarpettai channel and other three channels namely Karisal Vaikkal, Mettu Vaikkal and Mavadipacheri Vaikkal up to 48m length abutting the road culvert. 4) A new pipe culvert at LS 48m to LS 55m shall be provided to separate the Nainarpettai channel. 5) A common dividing wall shall be provided from downstream side of Pipe culvert from LS 55m to LS 440m to the common channel. 6) A distribution arrangement shall be provided for the three channels named Karisal Vaikkal, Mettu Vaikkal and Mavadipacheri Vaikkal. The vent size of above three channels are calculated based on the ayacut as tabulated below:- S. No. Channel Name Ayacut in acres Vent size in meter at LS 440m

from cistern Bed Level at LS 440m

¶1Karisal Vaikkal

440.82

2.90 x 1.20 + 106.150 m

¶2Mettu Vaikkal

110.61

0.75 x 1.20 +106.150 m

¶3Mavadipacheri Vaikkal

151.81

1.00 x 1.20 + 106.150 m

(7) Existing Nainarpettai channel will run separately from zero point of Rear cistern without any change in the crest level of cistern.

(8) By the above arrangements, the Riparian rights of all 9 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 channels will be ensured with equitable distribution.

¶3I am also directed to request you to take appropriate action based on the above conclusions and orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.10646 of 2008 and W.P.(MD)No.1352 of 2016 dated

11.09.2023."

¶6Since a formula has been evolved, time should be given to see, if it works well in practice. Liberty is however given to the aggrieved stakeholders to question the same, if needed. While implementing the impugned aforesaid communication, care should be taken that the parameters and norms set out therein are scrupulously adhered to.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed certain concerns. I am however of the view that unless the formula is allowed to be implemented, one could not say how it fares on ground. These writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.09.2023 10 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J. PMU To:

¶1The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶3The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶4The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai.

¶5The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Department, Lower Vaigai Basin Circle, Sivagangai. W.P.(MD)Nos.10646 of 2008 & 1352 of 2016 11 W.P.(MD)NO.10646 OF 2008

29.09.2023