IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Kavitha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub-Collector, Vridhachalam, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

2.The Revenue Tahsildar, Thittakudi, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore.

3.The President, Marudathur Panchayat, Thittakudi Taluk, Vridhachalam District.

3.Selvaraj

5.Kumaravel

6.Kumaresan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Oo.Mu(A4) 5322/2022, dated 08.02.2023, signed on 29.03.2023 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore PVC pipeline laid beneath S.No.4/4B, 4/5 and the pathway to their south, the channel on the further south and upto 1800 sq.m. as permitted by the 3^rd respondent in his proceeding dated 18.09.2014.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Meenal For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate For R4 to R6 : No appearance

O R D E R

Challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 08.02.2023, rejecting the request of the petitioner to lay pipelines in the land belonging to the 4^th respondent in S.No.14/2B3, Marudathur Village, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.According to the petitioner, the petitioner and her husband own the properties in S.Nos.4/4A, 4/4B and 4/3 in Marudathur Village, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. Besides, they also have properties in the same Village as under :

S.No. Extent Hec. Ares

66/7B 0.06.50 66/92A 0.11.50

3.It is the case of the petitioner that, immediately south of their properties bearing S.Nos.4/4A and 4/4B and S.No.4/5, there is a pathway and further south, there is a Government channel which goes further north, turns east and goes upto a lake. S.Nos.4/2 and 4/5 belonged to the father of the respondents 5 and 6. The 4^th respondent is in possession of S.Nos.4/2 and 4/5 which belongs to the respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner and the 4^th respondent have to take water by laying pipeline beneath the earth and across pathway belonging to the Government. Both of them applied to the 3^rd respondent for permission. The Panchayat also considered their earlier applications in its meeting, obtained permission from the Block Development Officer, and also obtained report from the Nallur Union Engineer. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 18.09.2014, permission was granted by the 3^rd respondent to lay pipeline along 1800 metres on payment of Rs.5,400/-. Similarly, the 4^th respondent was permitted to take pipeline along 500 metres on payment of Rs.1,500/-. So far, there was no disturbance to the user of the pipes. Now, in the recent times, the 4^th respondent had developed ill-will towards the petitioner’s husband and thereby, he is not allowing the petitioner to draw water through his land. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a petition to the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, it appears that enquiry was conducted by the 2^nd respondent and thereafter, it was taken on appeal before the 1^st respondent and a police compliant was also lodged in this regard. Ultimately, the 1^st respondent, by the impugned order, has rejected the request of the petitioner to lay pipeline in the land belonging to the 4^th respondent, stating that the 4^th respondent is objecting to the same. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, if the petitioner is not permitted to lay pipeline in the land of the 4^th respondent, the petitioner may not be in a position to carry out her agricultural activities.

5.Whereas, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner insists for laying of pipeline in the land belonging to the 4^th respondent, which is a private land, which is not permissible. According to them, as per the instructions, the petitioner can lay pip