S SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM Vs. COLLECTOR OF KAMARAJAR DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner has come up to this Court praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 not to put up any bore well in S. No. 275/1 of Konnur village, Srivilliputhur taluk Kamarajar district which is a public pathway.

(3.) The petitioner is an agriculturist and he owns nearly 15 acres of land, as alleged by him at Konnur village, Srivilliputhur taluk. The petitioner alleges that survey number 275/1 is a road intended for movement of vehicles, carts etc., that the said road runs for about 4-1/2 kilometers and that on both sides of the road there are agricultural lands cultivating paddy, sugarcane and chilly etc. The petitioner also alleges that the said road connecting the said Konnur village with Watrap used for transporting fertilisers, seeds, seeds, paddy and sugarcane, that it is in existence for more than 60 years and that it is about 13 feet in width. The petitioner also alleges that near his land on the public road, according to the petitioner, which bears S. No. 275/1, the respondents are attempting to lay a bore well for supply of drinking water to villagers numbering about 2500. The petitioner's grievance is that if such a bore well is put up in the public road and such consequent construction of structures for installing motor pump set, which board etc. will block free movement in the public road. The petitioner also alleges that it will affect the agriculturists in respect of transport of fertilisers, agricultural produce etc. The petitioner further alleges that if a bore well is laid in the public road, it will obstruct the ingress and egress to the agriculturists who are having lands on both sides of the road and that it will clearly show the non-application of mind of the respondents by selecting the site for installing a bore well for supply of water to the villagers. It is also alleges that nobody from Ground Water Department, a wing of Public Works Department or geologist visited the village and conducted any test to ascertain existence of sufficient ground water before attempting to put up a bore well. The petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that in the event of laying the bore well and consequent construction of pump set room in the public path way, there will be only 2 feet left for villagers for the use of the said road to the villagers. It is also alleged that no Panchayat Board is in existence, that the matter of installation of bore-well in the public path way used by villagers of Konnur village was not at all placed before the District Development Council, that the action of the respondents in making a hole and putting up a pump room in the public street is in violation of the provisions of Section 186 of the District Municipalities Act. It is further stated in the affidavit that a bore well is in existence about 2 miles east of Konnur village that if the same is depended it will solve the drinking water problem of the village and that instead of depending on the said bore well the respondents are making attempts to put up a bore well in a public road which is against public interest. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that at Annadhinam-poromboke land bearing No. 601/1 at Konnur village, after scientific examination it was revealed that there is sufficient water supply to villagers for drinking purpose and that the said land is available for putting up a bore well for water for drinking purposes. It seems that the petitioner made a representation on 10-8-1992 before the first respondent herein and that the respondents are proceeding with the work of installation of bore well instead of taking action on the representation of the petitioner herein. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer as stated supra. 3.1 W. M. P. No. 20083 of 1992 has been filed by third parties who represent themselves as they are representing the interest of the general public (i.e.) villagers of Kunnur, Watrap Srivilliputhur taluk. The said petition was ordered by this Court on 22-9-1992, and they are impleaded as respondents 3 to 5 in this writ petition. The impleaded respondents 3 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit stating that they along with other villagers collectively and in public interest gave a representation to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu requesting for provision of drinking water since for the past eight months they are suffering from acute drinking water scarcity. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that since the well in the Panchayat Union which supplied drinking water to the village dried, the villagers approached the second respondent in person on 14-4-1992 and that the second respondent assured the villagers that steps will be taken provide facilities to provide drinking water. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the second respondent inspected the village on 14-7-1992, that the entire villagers en masse represented about their drinking water problem that the second respondent assured them that he would take immediate steps to redress their grievance and that again on 19-7-1992 the villagers sent a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 informing that the entire village would be conducting a dharna in case of failure to take immediate steps for providing drinking water to the village. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Rural Welfare Officer of Kunnur group by later dated 22-7-1992 informed about the decision of the villagers to hold agitation to the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Watrap and that the Commissioner, in turn, brought to the notice of the second respondent herein about the situation by letter dated 24-7-1992. Pursuant to the respondentations of the villagers, it is claimed in the counter affidavit that the second respondent passed an order dated 14-8-1992 sanctioning to dig up a bore well. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Geologists who had inspected, selected two sites in Survey Nos. 275/1 and 275/5 for digging bore wells in which there was availability of under ground water that S. No. 275/5 being a patta land, S. No. 275/1 was approved for digging the bore well, that the said land is a Government poromobke even though it is used as a cart track by the adjoining land owners, that the width of the cart track is 13 feet, that on the southern extreme side for cart track 6 inches bore well was dug up on 18-8-1992 by the Watrap Agro Engineering Service Co-operative Center Limited and that they also submitted a report on 19-8-1992 for completion of bore well. In the meantime the petitioner has come up. before this Court and obtained an order of interim injunction. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the allegation made in the affidavit by the petitioner that the pumpset and motor room would be a hindrance to the movement of carts on the track is not correct since the motor room is proposed to be constructed only on the patta land in S. No. 284 belonging to one late Ramasundaram, that his legal heirs have given consent for putting up the motor pumpset room and that in any case the 6 inches bore on the extreme southern side of the track would not be of any obstruction as apprehended by the petitioner when the motor pumpset room is proposed to be constructed on the patta land without any hindrance to the passage of the carts on the cart track. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the land in S.No. 275/1 is a Government poromboke which is not vested with the Panchayat as alleged by the petitioner, that the Collector is the competent authority to do any execution work in the said cart track poromboke and as such as the provisions of Sections 82 and 84 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958 will not apply to the facts of the case. It is also stated that the welfare measure taken to provide basic facilities such as provision of drinking water facilities cannot be questioned by such persons who try to project their selfish interest above the welfare of 4000 inhabitants of the villagers. It is also stated that there is a pucca road connecting the village with Watrap town through Krishnan koil and that is maintained by P.W.D. and Panchayat Union. It is also stated that the disputed cart track is not the access to the Watrap town as alleged by the petitioner, and that on the other hand it is only a small cart track used by handful persons owning the adjoining lands. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot dictate the respondents 2 and 3 to dig the bore well in a place of his choice, that in the instant case, the site was inspected, tested and recommended by the Geologist from the Government considering the availability of ground water and other relevant factors, that the bore well was dug on 18-8-1992 in pursuance of the sanction of the second respondent by order dated 14-8-1992 and that the alleged representation dated 10-8-1992 purported to have been given by the general village public is not the one sent by the villagers belonging to Kunnur village but by the villagers belonging to adjacent village at the instigation of the petitioner.