Court directed swift measures to rectify unauthorized closure of drainage affecting agricultural land.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to restore the culvert illegally closed by them while tarring the road and restore the drainage (‘chal’) illegally closed by the 9^th respondent, so as to enable free flow of water to public thodu and to prevent flow of water to petitioners’ property;

ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 2, 3 and 8 to complete the proceedings required to resolve the issue regarding stagnation of water in petitioners’ property, as reported by the 6^th respondent vide Ext.P10, forthwith in a time bound manner;

iii) petitioners also pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with production of translation of the documents produced in vernacular language; &

iv) issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. This Writ Petition is filed alleging inordinate delay caused by respondents 2 and 3 in restoring the culvert which they closed while tarring the road and to restore the drainage, which according to the petitioners is reclaimed by the 9^th respondent. Petitioners are husband and wife. They have property in Ward No.11 of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat, and northern boundary of their property is the Panchayat ‘thodu’ lying in east-west direction. They were using the said property for agricultural purpose, is the submission. There was a drainage lying in south-north direction starting from Kap India Tile Factory Road to the above said ‘thodu’ and there was a culvert constructed by the 2^nd respondent under the road, is the submission. The drainage was passing along the eastern boundary of the 9^th respondent and reached at the above public thodu, is the further submission. According to the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent closed the culvert in May, 2015 at the instance of the 9^th respondent under the pretext of tarring the road and the drainage water started directly flowing to the petitioners’ property and getting stagnated there. It is also submitted that the petitioners agricultural property became water logged and became useless for agricultural purpose. After closure of the culvert, the 9^th respondent reclaimed the drainage in the year 2018, is the further submission. Vide Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation submitted by the 1^st petitioner, and vide Ext.P10, the 3^rd respondent decided to resolve the issue, but so far the issue has not been resolved, is the grievance of the petitioners. After Ext.P7, the respondents 6 and 7 submitted Exts.P8 and P9 reports before the 3^rd respondent. In Ext.P8 it is stated that the water ‘chal’ (drainage) is seen closed. In Ext.P9 it is reported that water logging is caused in the property of the petitioners due to closure of drainage and to avoid water logging, 5 metre long culvert and 40 metres long drainage are to be constructed. According to the petitioners, for the last nine years, the petitioners are not in a position to use their land. No effective action has been taken to redress the grievance of the petitioners. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners , the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice was issued to the 9^th respondent, there is no appearance for the 9^th respondent.

4. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 16.01.2026, this Court directed the 2^nd and 3rd respondents to file an affidavit about the steps taken after Ext.P9 recommenda