Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.Karthikeyan, J
K.S.Paramasivam – Appellant
Versus
S.S.Nachimuthu – Respondent
S.A.Nos.264 to 266 of 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Zeenath Begam
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Manokaran
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in land use disputes, requiring notice to affected parties before granting permission for pipeline installation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeals - This matter concerns the legality of a permanent injunction to lay a pipeline for drawing water for agricultural purposes. Key issues include the binding nature of earlier judgments on the appellant and the rights of landowners post-conveyance. (Paras 7 and 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - Authority of Revenue Authorities - The court directs that any application for permission to lay a pipeline must involve notice to affected parties and a thorough survey of the land. (Paras 15(i) to 15(iv))
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought an injunction to lay a pipeline for water use, facing objections from landowners. Previous judgments had mixed outcomes, which led to substantial questions of law regarding binding judgments and land rights.
Findings of Court:
The appellant may apply for permission to draw water, but must provide notice to surrounding landowners and have a survey conducted.
Issues: Key issues include whether the prior judgment is binding and the rights post land conveyance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized procedural fairness in reviewing applications to lay pipelines, ensuring all affected parties are heard.
Result: The appeals are disposed of with directives on reapplication for permission to lay the pipeline.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. permanent injunctions on land water access. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. objections raised against permission to draw water. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. permissions must consider previous rulings. (Para 10) |
| 4. need for equitable processes in land use applications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. directions for reviewing pipeline permission. (Para 15) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
All the second appeals are taken up together since the issue revolves is the same.
2. S.A.No.264 of 2009 emanates from O.S.No.125 of 2006 filed by the appellant before the Principal District Munsif Court at Bhavani seeking a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to lay a pipeline in his land and draw water to the lands of the plaintiff where agriculture is being done. This relates to S.No.117/5 RS.No.117/5A at Kuppandampalayam village Bhavani Taluk in Erode district.
3. S.A. No.265 of 2009 emanates from O.S.No.167 of 2006 again filed by the appellant herein before the Principal District Munsif Court at Bhavani seeking a judgment and decree that the plaintiff has a right to seek permission to draw water through pipeline by the first and second defendants/the Collector of Erode and the Revenue Tahsildar seeking a permanent injunction restraining the fifth and sixth defendants from interfering with such drawing of water through pipeline and costs of the suit.
4. S.A.No.266 of 2009 emanates from O.S.No.161 of 2006 wherein the appellant was the defendant and which suit had been filed by the respondents seeking permanent injection restraining the defendant/appellant herein from laying any underground pipeline in the suit cart track at R.S.Nos.117/5, 117/6 and 409/5 of Kuppandampalayam village and also the land in R.S. No.9/1, 9/2, 9/3, 9/4 & 9/5 of Moongilpatti village, which had been described more fully in the schedule to the plaint.
5.Written statements were filed by the respective defendants questioning the right and authority of the plaintiff, particularly, in O.S.No.125 of 2006 and in O.S. No.167 of 2006 from laying pipeline over the suit cart track and also in the underground of the land of the defendant for the only purpose of drawing water from the other lands of the plaintiff where agriculture is done. For the reasons best known, the plaintiff had not dug bore well or well in the lands were agriculture is done, but, for the sake of convenience had purchased a small piece of land elsewhere and had dug a bore well/well and sought permission to draw water underground to the lands where agriculture is being done. This would necessitate cutting across the suit cart tract which is used in common and also the agricultural land of the defendant over which naturally the defendant has serious objections.
6.The learned Principal District Munsif at Bhavani had delivered a common judgment in all the three suits on 19.09.2007. By the said common judgment, O.S. No.125 of 2006 had been decreed and permanent injunction had been granted. Similarly, in O.S. No.161 of 2006, the suit had been dismissed, which effectively mean that the plaintiff therein was not entitled to draw water to the land to the land where agriculture was being done. By the same common judgment, O.S.No.167 of 2006 was decreed and injunction as prayed for was granted.
7.I am deeply conscious that I am not entering into a discussion as to the reasons for which the learned Principal District Munsif had decreed two of the suits and had dismissed one of the suits. This had necessitated three appeal suits to be filled in A.S.Nos.46, 47 & 48 of 2007. All these three appeal suits came up for consideration before the Additional District Court Fast Track Court IV, Bhavani, Erode district. By a common judgment dated 21.04.2008, all the three appeals suits were allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed. Thereafter, the present three second appeals have been filed. To the extent to which the records have been perused, it sho
