The District Collector lacks authority to permit unauthorized use of water and encroachment on public water bodies, reaffirming the need for compliance with existing legal judgments.

ORDER :

S.SRIMATHY, J.

The present writ petition is filed for Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take action on the petitioner's representation, dated 20.11.2017 and to remove the encroachments made by respondents 6 and 7 by laying water pipe in the Vellakulam Tank and public road in Vellakulam Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had served as Director in Rural Development Department and retired from service. In Vellakulam Village there are panchayat borewells which are being utilized for public drinking water purpose. But many persons had erected deep borewells in poramboke lands and in their own lands near panchayat borewells, hence the petitioner submitted several representations to respondents 1 to 4 to take action but no action was coming forth. The 6^th respondent has an open well in her son's patta land and also having free agriculture service connection. By using the water in the open well and free electricity supply, the 6^th and 7^th respondents (who are mother and sister of Mr.Perumalsamy and the property stands in his name) made attempts to lay pipes in the government road abutting the Vellakulam Tank bund to connect his six acres agriculture land, which is nearly 1 km away from the open well. The said Perumalsamy is in abroad and it is managed by 6^th and 7^th respondents. To curtail the illegal activities, the petitioner made complaints to respondents 1 to 4, but no action was taken. Taking advantage of the inaction, the 6^th and 7^th respondents and their men have laid water pipes from their patta land crossing the Panchayat Road and Vellakulam Tank Bund and tank and the said pipe is laid nearly 1 km in the panchayat road and on the tank bund. The 6^th respondent's intention is to connect the six acres patta land crossing the Vellakulam tank and the petitioner's land in S.No.633/2. The 6^th respondent has also laid pipe in a portion of the petitioner's land. Hence through representation, dated 25.04.2017, the petitioner requested the 2^nd respondent to take action against the illegal action, the 2^nd respondent vide communication dated 28.04.2017, directed the 4^th respondent to conduct an enquiry and take action, but no action by the 4^th respondent. Hence, on 05.06.2017, the petitioner gave another representation to the 4^th respondent along with 2^nd respondent letter 28.04.2017. Again, the petitioner submitted representations on 07.08.2017, 26.08.2017, 31.08.2017, 14.10.2017, 24.10.2017 and 30.10.2017, but no response. While inspecting the site by the respondent 2 and 4 on 31.07.2017 and 04.08.2017, it was physically confirmed that there exists a public borewell near the 6^th respondent's well and 5 individuals installed borewell in government poramboke land, hence the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 02.11.2017, directed the 3^rd respondent to inspect the site and file his report. Then 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 04.12.2017, directed the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kuruvikulam Panchayat Union, to inspect the site and file report. Again, the petitioner submitted reminder, then the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 16.02.2018, directed the 4^th respondent to take action. Then through RTI application dated 17.04.2018 the petitioner sought the Assistant Executive Engineer's report, but no copy was received, then an appeal was filed to the 1^st respondent on 25.05.2018. The contention of the petitioner that the electricity connection cannot be utilized by another person or by neighbouring land owner, if used it amounts to unauthorised use of electricity connection. In the present case, the 6^th and 7^th respondents are using the free agriculture service connection to another land which is 1 kilometre way from their land having open well that too crossing the public road, water body and neighbouring patta lands. Hence, the petitioner prayed to disconnect the electricity connection granted to the 6^th respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that as