ARYAGOUNDAMPATTI, ODUVANKURICHI AND KADIRANALLUR AYACUT PASANA VIVASAYIGAL NALA SANGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, designed as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by a society consisting of members who are 'Ayacutdars'. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.102, Public Works Department, dated 26.03.2010, in and by which the Government directed water for irrigation shall be shared by the 'Ayacutdars' in the ratio of 70:30 between the Ayacutdars of Aryagoundampatti and Oduvankurichi in Rasipuram Taluk and Kadiranallur in Namakkal Taluk. The dispute raised is between the "Ayacutdars" of three irrigation tanks at Oduvankurichi, Aryagoundapatti and Kadiranallur and the "Ayacutdars" of Thoppapatti tank.

(2.) Mr.R.Subramanian learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Descriptive Memoir prepared during 1898 after survey of Thirumanimutharu basin mentions the details of the source of water for the tank as well as the discharge of excess water. It is submitted that the Aryagoundampatti tank has a Ayacut area of about 13 hectares and is fed by the Varattar river channel and total Ayacut area of 33.44.5 hectares. It is further submitted that as per the Descriptive Memoir, the source of water supply to Oduvankurichi tank is by a channel from Anicut across the Varattar a tributary of Thirumannimutharu and the feeder channel also serves as a source of irrigation for about 77 hectares on its path. Therefore, it is submitted that Aryagoundampatti tank irrigation system has a total ayacutdar area of 33.44.5 hectares. The total ayacut area of the three tanks namely, Aryagoundampatti, Oduvankurichi, Kadiranallur. Placing reliance on the Descriptive Memoir, it is submitted that the Thoppapatti tank has an Ayacut area of about 137.7 hectares and the source of supply is from No.59, Pallipatty tank and discharges into No.42, Kathiranallur tank. It is further submitted that the District Collector, Salem after considering the entries in the Descriptive Memoir as well as the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, submitted a report to the Government, dated 31.05.1972, stating that the report of the Executive Engineer, dated 02.05.1972, with regard to the catchment areas of Thoppapatti and Aryagoundampatti tanks is incorrect, as could be seen from the Descriptive Memoir and accordingly recommended for distribution of the water to be used by the "Ayacutdars" of Aryagoundampatti and Thoppapatti at the ratio of 1:2. It is further submitted that the Tahsildar, Rasipuram, submitted a report during February 1989, specifying the extent given for all the three villages namely, Aryagoundampatti, Oduvankurichi and Thoppapatti and recommended for equal share of the water. The Revenue Divisional Officer by report dated 07.06.1989, taking note of the representation made by the villages recommended for sharing of water in the ratio of 60:40 between the Aryagoundampatti, and Thoppapatti tanks by relying upon these reports. It is submitted that the authorities, who had submitted reports from the year 1971 have lost sight of the fact that the Descriptive Memoir is the basic document which shows the flow of water to the respective tanks and ignoring the findings in the Memoir, the authorities could not have recommended for lessor amount of share of water. It is submitted that in a Second Appeal before the Court in S.A.No.1784 of 1991 preferred by Ramasamy Goundan and others, which arose out of a Suit in O.S.No.29 of 1979, regarding the flow of water to Thoppapatti tank and the rights of the Ayacutdar, the District Collector took a stand that the petitioners therein had no right over the Palar river water, as the Palar River flows to the Thoppapatti tank directly ever since, the tank was formed prior to 1898 and Aryagoundampatti village is not a registered source from Kolli hills and the registered Ayacut of Thoppapatti tank is 343.11 acres whereas Aryagoundampatti tank is a minor irrigation pond with registered Ayacut of 32.43 acres only. Commenting upon the stand taken by the Collector, it is submitted that there was absolutely no basis for taking such a stand in the counter and the stand was unsubstantiated.

(3.) It is further submitted that the Ayacutdars of Kadiranallur filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court in W.P.No.1413 of 2001, stating that they are also entitled to a share of water as claimed by Thoppapatti and Aryagoundampatti villagers and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 06.02.2001 to consider the representation made by the Ayacutdars of Kadiranallur within a time frame. Similarly the Ayacutdars of Oduvankurichi filed W.P.No.1414 of 2001, which was also disposed of by order dated 06.02.2001, to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law. Therefore, it is submitted that the claims of the Ayacutdars of Aryagoundampatti, Oduvankurichi and Kadiranallur have to be considered. It is submitted that while the facts remain thus during 1991, the official respondents took a different stand, which is based on a wrong premise and based on the erroneous report submitted by the Collector, the Commissioner of Land Administration vide order dated 23.01.1992, recommended distribution of Palar water between the Thoppapatti and Aryagoundampatti tanks in the ratio of 2:1 and inspite of several representations and producing authenticated records, no action was taken and a Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.39305 of 2005, as a Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the official respondents to frame a scheme for apportionment of water in the ratio of 50:50 between the Ayacutdars of Aryagoundampatti and Oduvankurichi and Kadiranallur. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 07.12.2005, by which a direction was issued to hasten the process of constructing a permanent structure to ensure sharing of water on a permanent basis. Therefore, it is submitted that the order impugned in this Writ Petition has been passed without considering the essential documents and in particular the Descriptive Memoir and the report of the District Collector, dated 31.05.1972; the report of the Tahsildar, Rasipuram, dated 31.03.1989; the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 07.06.1989 and therefore, the impugned order calls for interference.