J D RANGANATHAN AND J D BALAKRISHNAN Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER FOR LAND ADMINISTRATION, GOVT OF TAMIL NADU AND ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.11.2000 made in W.P. No. 20084 of 1993, in and by which the learned Judge after finding that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) According to the writ petitioners, they are agriculturists and are brothers. Both own lands in Salavansickenpatti Pudur, Vagatholuvu Village, Udumalpet Taluk. Survey No. 148 is classified as Natham Poromboke and the same is situated by the side of their house and patta lands. They dug a well spending Rs. 1,00,000/- in Survey No. 148 even in the year 1967. There is sufficient water in the well. They want to irrigate their lands from the well situated in S. No. 148 classified as Natham Poromboke. They applied to the second respondent for recognition of irrigation from the well by using electric motor pump set through pipes laid underground for their lands in S. Nos. 22/1, 22/3, 23, 24, 25 and 26 in Salavansickenpatti Pudur, Udumalpet Taluk. The second respondent rejected their application for recognition on 31.12.1976 on the ground that it would adversely affect the public wells in the village site. An appeal filed by them to the then Board of Revenue was also rejected on 08.05.1979. A revision was filed against the said order. The Government by its order in G.O.Ms.848 dated 09.04.1981 allowed their revision and permitted them to draw water for irrigation purposes from the well in S. No. 148 classified as Natham Poromboke by electric motor pump set through pipes laid underground in S. No. 22 etc. and in the same order, the Government directed the authorities to collect Track Rent for pipes laid in S. No. 35. Initially, the said permission was granted for five years and before the expiry of five years, the writ petitioners applied for renewal of recognition and they were granted permission for another five years with effect from 20.09.1996. Before the expiry of the second renewal, the petitioners applied to the second respondent for renewal of recognition and the second respondent passed an order on 14.03.1993 rejecting the permission for renewal of recognition. The petitioners filed an appeal on 23.03.1993 to the first respondent against the order of the second respondent rejecting the application for the renewal of recognition and the first respondent dismissed their appeal on 28.09.1993. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent and having no other effective remedy, they filed the writ petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the Government in their order in G.O.Ms. No. 1618 Revenue Department dated 06.12.1991 issued a general order prohibiting grant of permission and to lay pipe line in poromboke lands to take such well water to other agricultural lands. Taking note of the said Government Order, permission for renewal of Track Rent which was already granted was rejected by proceedings dated 14.03.1993. The appeal filed before the Special Commissioner, Land Administration was also dismissed.