SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
K.Ranganathan – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent
W.P No. 26462 of 2025 | WMP.No.29779 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.R.Pushpalatha
For the Respondents:Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for M/s.S.V.Karthikeyan (R2), Mr.R.Murthy (R1), Government Advocate

Guidelines on well-spacing inapplicable to domestic wells for public drinking water supply.

Headnote:The petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking mandamus to enforce G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 02.03.2012 and Consolidated Guidelines 2011 (Chief Engineer's Circular dated 25.01.2010) mandating 150m spacing between wells to prevent groundwater depletion affecting adjacent agricultural wells. Facts involve petitioner's well in S.Nos.29/5, 31/5A threatened by panchayat's replacement well in adjacent S.No.28 within 80m, claimed to obstruct lake drainage. Court found guidelines inapplicable to domestic wells and no evidence of groundwater impact. Issue framed as applicability of well-spacing guidelines to panchayat's domestic drinking water well replacing 30-year-old borewell, supported by Gram Sabha resolution. Ratio: Guidelines do not apply to domestic wells; panchayat's prior borewell caused no depletion, and proposed well for public supply (60,000 litres/day) won't affect petitioner's later-installed well (para 7). Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks enforcement of well-spacing guidelines against adjacent digging. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. panchayat defends domestic well replacement for public supply, no impact. (Para 4 , 5)
3. guidelines inapplicable to domestic wells; petition dismissed. (Para 7 , 8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P No. 26462 of 2025 and WMP.No.29779 of 2025 K.Ranganathan S/o.Kandhan, Kulaththumettu Theru, V.Puthupalayam Village, Kandachipuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kandachipuram, Villupuram District.

2. The Panchayat President, V.Puthupalayam Village, Kandachipuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ Of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner representation dated 11.6.2025 to take necessary action to stop the digging of well and or deep well by obstructing the lake water drainage within the vicinity of 80 mtrs from petitioner existing well in survey No.29/5, 31/5A at V.Puthupalayam village, and may direct the 2nd respondent to follow the Consolidated Guidelines 2011 which is issued by the Chief Engineers Circular No.CE1/2010/DD(G)/ dated 25.1.2010).

For Petitioner: Ms.R.Pushpalatha For Respondents: Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for M/s.S.V.Karthikeyan (R2)

Mr.R.Murthy (R1)

Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 11.6.2025 and to take necessary action to stop the digging of well and or deep well by obstructing the lake water drainage within the vicinity of 80 mtrs from petitioner existing well in survey No.29/5, 31/5A at V.Puthupalayam village, and may direct the 2nd respondent to follow the Consolidated Guidelines 2011 which is issued by the Chief Engineers Circular No.CE1/2010/DD(G)/ dated 25.1.2010).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land in S.Nos.29/5 and 31/5A at V.Puthupalayam village, Kandachipuram Taluk and the 2nd respondent’s land is situated in Survey No.28, which is adjacent to the petitioner’s land and the 2nd respondent is involved in the process of digging a well very adjacent to the well belonging to the petitioner within a vicinity of 80 meters, by not following the G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 02.03.2012 issued by the Public Works Department. If the 2nd respondent is allowed to dig, the petitioner’s well will get affected and water scarcity will be caused. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.52 of 2011 issued by the Public Works Department dated 02.03.2012 and as per the consolidated Guidelines in Force adopted by the State Groundwater Department, as on 28.01.2011, Consolidated Guidelines 2011, which is issued by the Chief Engineer’s Circular No.CE1/2010/DD(G)/dated 25.01.2010, minimum spacing to be adopted in between the two wells are 150mts, but the 2nd respondent without following the same has involved in the process of digging a well very adjacent to the well belonging to the petitioner.

She therefore prays to allow this Writ Petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that earlier i.e., 30 years back, a bore well was installed on behalf of the Panchayat in the road margin of S.No.28 and fitted with a Hand Pump. Since the drinking water from the said bore well was pleasant for consuming, the villagers utilized the same for domestic purpose and later the hand pump was replaced with electric motor and mini ground level tank was installed. A Gram Sabha Resolution was passed on 02.10.2024 to dig a well, near the Panchayath bore well for supplying drinking water to the village and to utilize the electricity service connection obtained for mini tank, for pumping water from the proposed well and after getting sanction diggin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top