Police must protect enforcement of subsisting revenue orders for irrigation rights absent contrary civil court orders.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd Respondent to provide police protection to enable the petitioner to restore electricity service connection in Consumer No.04022003319 and draw water from Survey Nos.79/1 and 79/2 to irrigate the petitioners land in Survey No.79/5 at Puthur Pudupalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District in terms of the RDOs order dated 28.10.2024.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Senthilkumar For Respondents- Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, 1 & 2: Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd Respondent to provide police protection to enable the petitioner to restore electricity service connection in Consumer No.04022003319 and draw water from Survey Nos.79/1 and 79/2 to irrigate the petitioners land in Survey No.79/5 at Puthur Pudupalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District in terms of the RDOs order dated 28.10.2024.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of agricultural land in S.No.79/5 situated at Puthur Pudupalayam Village to an extent of 70 cents. The property was allotted to him through a registered partition and Patta No.164 stands in the petitioner’s name. The Adangal and other revenue records also reflects the petitioner’s ownership. The petitioner has been cultivating coconut trees and drawing water from the common well situated in S.No.79/1. The petitioner has been drawing water and cultivating his land. However, during April, 2024 the third respondent unlawfully obstructed the petitioner irrigating his land by preventing drawing of water through pipeline from S.Nos.79/1 and 79/2. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Erode. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order dated 28.10.2024 in Na.Ka.No.2371/2024/A1 confirming that the petitioner has got all the rights to draw water from the common Well through the pipeline and restrained others from causing obstruction. This RDO order has been appealed to the District Revenue Officer (DRO), who confirmed the RDO order, hence, the petitioner’s right to draw water from S.No.79/1 and 79/2 to irrigate petitioner’s land in S.No.79/5 has been approved. This being so, the third respondent and others have been unnecessarily obstructing the petitioner. The third respondent is the relative of the petitioner, who is owning adjacent part of the land. Though the petitioner’s complaint received and CSR assigned, no police protection given and the obstructors in embolden causing disturbance to the petitioner’s cultivation.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, enquiry conducted by the respondent police and finding that there is some damage caused to the wall of the Well and some soil collapsed into the well, hence, drawing of water is obstructed. Further there is a civil suit filed in O.S.No.100 of 2025 by the third respondent. In view of the same, the police advised the petitioner, third respondent and others to approach the civil Court.

4.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that as on date, the RDO order is stands in favour of the petitioner. Unless there is any orders obtained in O.S.No.100 of 2025 or any other civil Court or from the competent authority, the third respondent or any other party not to obstruct the petitioner drawing water for his land. In such case, the respondent police are duty bound to ensure the petitioner to continue with his agricultural activities without any stoppage of water.