The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of rights of agriculturists, regulation of water distribution for agricultural purposes, and the illegality of extracting and selling water without proper permission.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the impugned notice in Ka.En:1/u Po (Se) / Nal dated 20.04.2015 does not apply to the petitioners and consequently forbear the 4th respondent not in any way disturb or dislocate or remove the water pipe line laid by the petitioners with the permission of the 3rd Respondent connecting the well situated in agricultural land in Survey No.8/3, Nadukombai Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District to the well situated in Agricultural land in Survey No.211/3, Uthrakidi Kaval Panchayat, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.)

1. The notice issued by the 4th respondent based on the orders issued by the High Court in W.P.No.24871 of 2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioners state that they are small farmers and cultivating their agricultural land owned by them. The Survey No.8/3 and Survey No.211/3 have wells. The well in Survey No.8/3 is at the bottom of the Kolli Hills in Namakkal. There is a lot of flow in the well. But the well in Survey No.211/3, situated 2 Kms away from Survey No.8/3 does not have enough water to cultivate the land belonging to the petitioners.

3. The petitioners state that they grow coconuts, coco and other crops. Thus, permission was granted by the 3rd respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Namakkal District on 04.01.2009 and accordingly, the petitioners laid pipelines, connecting the well in Survey No.8/3 with the well in Survey No.211/3.

4. One Mr.Pannerselvam, an agriculturist in the Village gave a complaint to the authorities on 26.07.2013 and 03.09.2013 that one Mr.Jagadeesan, who is having a well in his land at the foot of the Kolli Hills had laid pipeline in the odai to Jaganathan''s land. Under the guise of cultivating Jaganathan''s land, he was actually selling the water for commercial purposes to Sago Factory owned by A.K.P.Mani.

5. As a result, the water table was getting dried up leaving no water for his land. He wanted the pipeline to be removed. Therefore, the said Pannerselvam filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24871 of 2014 and this Court passed an order on 18.03.2015 as follows:

“5.As it could be seen from the proceedings of the second respondent, the second respondent has clearly held that the pipelines laid by the fifth respondent is unauthorised and advised him to remove the same within 15 days. However, he has not removed the same, till date and there this Court is of the view that appropriate direction should be issued.

6.When the petitioner made a complaint to the Hon''ble Chief Minister Cell, the Block Development Officer, Senthamangalam Block, sent a reply to the Special Officer of the Hon''ble Chief Minister Cell on 16.07.2014 stating that the petitioner''s complaint has been forwarded to the second respondent. This communication was received in July 2014 and there appears to have been no action taken till date and no report has been filed by the second respondent.

7.In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the second respondent to implement the notice dated 18.09.2013, and take appropriate action for the removal of unauthorised pipelines which have been laid by the private respondents after issuing a notice to them within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.”

6. Based on the order passed by this Court, the impugned notice was issued to the writ petitioners.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners have not illegally extracted water nor they were selling the extracted water for commercial purposes. The petitioners are using the water by laying pipelines only for the agricultural purposes and with the permission of the competent authorities. In proceedings dated 04.01.2009, the permission