Notice under Section 3 is only a notice and not an order.

Srinivasan, J.

The petitioner herein as the owner of an extent of 1.56 aces in S.E. No.896/1, which has been assigned R.S. No.960/1, after re-survey pro- ceeding. After the advent of Lower Bhavani Project (Lower Bhavani Project) canal about 40 years ago. petitionees land has been included in the ayacut and it has been irrigated from the acquired Lower Bhavani Proiect canal, which runs to the immediate south of the property Number of other adjacent lands have also been included in the ayacut. There is no dispute that the lands of respondents 3 and 4 herein, which are situated in R.S. Nos.957/1, 958/3 and 959/1, are also included in the ayacut and this respondents 3 and 4 are also entitled to have their lands irrigated from the Lower Bhavani Project canal.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 gave a complaint to the Revenue Department in 1978 that the petitioner herein had obliterated the patta kanni vaikal (irrigation channel or Field Boothies,), running in R.S. No.960/1, and refused to allow water to their lands, which are situated in the lower ayacut. A report was called for from the Tahsildar. Erode, who inspected the lands on 19. 1978 and 29. 1978. He submitted two reports, according to which, the channel was obliterated by the petitioner and it should be restored. The Revenue Divisional Officer had himself inspected the lands on 210. 1978. He agreed with the view taken by the Tahsildar and, as a result, issued a notice dated 1. 1979 to the petitioner under Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Works (Construction of Field Boothies Act) (XXV of 1959), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The notice demanded the petitioner to dig a field boothies in his land in S.No.960/1. The notice informed him that in default, action will be taken under Sec.4 of the Act. The petitioner sent his objections to the notice on 12. 1979. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 9. 1979. In that order, reference is made to the inspection by the Tahsildar of all the concerned lands and his findings as well as the inspection by the Revenue Divisional Officer of all the lands included in the ayacut. After referring to the notice under Sec.3 of the Act and the objections raised by the petitioner herein, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that there was no truth in the objections raised by the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer also found that there was no other alternative source of irrigation for the lands of respondents 3 and 4 and other adjacent ayacutdars excepting a field boothies through S.No.960/1, the land of the petitioner herein. On such findings, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed that the land of the petitioner herein R.S.No.960/1 be excluded from the ayacut of Lower Bhavani Project under the provisions of Sec.4 of the Act as a penalty for the petitioner’s failure to comply with the notice issued under Sec.3 of the Act.

.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Col lector of the District. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 24. 1981. The appellate authority found that the procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was erroneous inasmuch as the notice under Sec.3 and the notice under Sec.6 of the Act were issued together simultaneously. Hence, the Collector cancelled the proceedings and remitted the matter back to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer for observance of the provisions of the Act and further proceedings. That order of the Collector was challenged by respondents 3 and 4 herein in W.P. No.71 17 of 1981 in this Court. That writ petition was dismissed on 211. 1986. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the matter before him within three months from the date of receipt of the said order.

4. Even when the writ petition was pending the lands were inspected and sketches were prepared in 1984. The inspection notes and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer were also prepared. After the disposal of the writ petition on 8. 1987, the Tah