Permission for laying pipelines must cover the specific area in question, and evidence of permission is required to support claims of legality.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents culminated in and by proceedings of the 2nd respondent in impugned order in Na.Ka.3112/2021/A1, dated 14.09.2021, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct proper enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the second respondent directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised pipe lines put up by the petitioner in the LBP canal blocking free flow of water to the land belonging to the sixth respondent in Survey No.79/3C.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:

(a) The second respondent viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer has no locus standi to issue orders to Tahsildar to remove the PVC pipeline formed in private land. Further, the petitioner was not served with any notice and no enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was also not communicated to him;

(b)The petitioner has obtained permission to lay pipelines under orders dated 18.12.2014 and 22.06.2015 by the fourth respondent;

(c) The representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2021 to the second respondent requesting him not to pass any order without conducting any enquiry with regard to the pipeline put up by the petitioner was not considered and ignoring the same the impugned order dated 14.09.2021 has been passed by the second respondent without hearing the petitioner;

(d) The petitioner has laid pipelines in the lands belonging to his neighbours with their permission and is not an encroacher.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent denying the contentions of the petitioner. According to the second respondent, the reports received from the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer reveal that there are encroachments made by the petitioner and he is pumping the water from the sluice illegally and letting the same through unauthorised pipelines. It is also stated that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, LBP Division, Erode had stated in the letters dated 07.05.2018 and 20.11.2018 that the land bearing R.S.No.79/3C of Vadugpatti village, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District is an irrigation land receiving the water for irrigation through the sluice No.2(E) situated at mile 3-3-320 of Chennasamuthiram Distribution Branch Channel diverted at mile 0-3-156. According to the second respondent, the report of the field staff reveals that the petitioner has laid the PVC Pipelines along the waterways and obstructed the free water flow to the land owned by the 6th respondent in R.S.No.79/3C.

4. The second respondent has also stated that the land in R.S.No.84 and 83/3, for which, the petitioner is said to have obtained permission to lay pipelines is not connected with the impugned order which pertains to PAP canal which is a public canal meant for all agriculturists in that area. According to the second respondent, in view of the status quo order dated 01.10.2021, granted by this Court, the implementation of the impugned order dated 14.09.2021 is kept in abeyance affecting the interest of the agriculturists in that area.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent who is the brother of the petitioner and he is the neighbouring land owner. He also submits that the pipelines which are to be removed under the impugned order does not fall within the lands of the petitioner, but starts in the border of the petitioner's land and are situated only adjoining the lands of one K.Subramani. The 6th respondent contends that there is no necessity to give an opportunity of hearing in the impugned proceedings to the petitioner as the lands where the pipelines are unauthorisedly laid is located only adjoining to Mr.K.Subramani's land who was given notice in the impugned proceedings.