1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU WP(MD)No.123 of 2011 and MP(MD).No.1 of 2011 C.Karunanidhi :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District. 2.The Tahsildar,Taluk Office, Pattukottai. :Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5449/2009/A2 on 08.12.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For respondents: Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this petition challenging the order, dated 08.12.2010, passed by the first respondent viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. 2.By the impugned order, the first respondent issued an order stating that the Survey No.32/8-C situated in Mathukoor North Village is encroached and it is described as a irrigation channel (Pasana Vaaikal) and the people of that area have given a petition for removal of encroachment of the land situated in the said survey number, in which the irrigation channel is located. In the impugned order the first respondent has also referred to earlier order dated 24.11.2010. The copy of the said communication is produced in page No.5 of the typed set of the petitioner. In that communication, it transpires that the village people of Muthukoor North Village have given a representation dated 04.03.2010 to the District Collector, Thanjavur and the District Collector had sent several reminders including the reminder, dated 10.11.2009 and thereafter, the Tahsildar, Pattukottai has given a report on 28.09.2010, after referring to all the documents. The first respondent by communication, dated 24.11.2011, found that on being enquired the village people by conducting spot inspection in the presence of the Ayyakutdhars, it was found that the irrigation channel is in existence from time immemorial and the water, that is received through Regunathasamuthiram Channel, is serving irrigation facility about 40 acres of land and therefore, the barbed wire fence, facing east-west side in Survey No.32/8, has to be removed and the irrigation channel should be restored. The Tahsildar ordered the petitioner to remove the fencing in order to enable the agriculturists to have the benefit of channel. Thereafter, the petitioner did not challenge the same. But, when the subsequent order, dated 08.12.2011, came to be issued in which a direction was given to the second respondent/Thasildar to remove the fencing in Survey No.32/8-C on the east-west side and to restore the status quo position and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 also to provide the irrigation channel, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 3.The contention raised by the petitioner was that the land was purchased to the extent of 44 cents from one Adaikalam on 01.02.1989 which has been registered at Sub Registrar Office, Mathukoor. On the eastern side of his land one Paneer Selvam land is situated and on the western side of his land one Kanniyan land is situated and on the northern side his own land is situated. On the southern side, there is a road running towards East West. The respondents, without even perusing the registered documents with reference to the location of the channel and without conducting any enquiry, passed the order of removal of fencing on his patta and the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been violated, inasmuch as the property sought to be taken up without due process. Hence, he sought for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2010. 4.The writ petition is yet to be admitted. In any event, the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land only on 01.02.1989, whereas the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the basis of the relevant documents, including on the enquiry from the public and also from his personal inspection as well as the report from the second respondent, found that the irrigation channel has been used from time immemorial and that facility cannot be curtailed by the petitioner by putting a barbed wire fencing in the land on the east-west side and thereby, preventing the irrigation facility for 40 acres of land. As the public made a complaint, he, being a public functionary, found the encroachment on public facilities. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the order passed by the first respondent is without based on record and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. If the petitioner contends that he was the actual owner of the land in which the fencing is found, nothing prevents him from challenging the same before the appropriate civil Court. In the present case, the beneficiaries of the irrigation channel, who made a complaint to the District Collector and the first respondent, have not been made parties either individually or in a representative capacity. In the absence of the beneficiaries made party, this court is not inclined to interfere with the facilities enjoyed by the local people, over which the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the order on the basis of the grievance projected. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Pattukottai,Thanjavur District. 2.The Tahsildar,Taluk Office,Pattukottai +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.39644. RP/02.12.2011/2P/4C. Order in WP(MD)No.123 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/