K ARUMUGAM Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner had stated that he is the absolute owner of the property in S. No. 195/1 to 3 of Ikkaraithathapalli Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners' land in S.F. No. 176/4B of Ikkaraithathapalli Village. The water from the said Well is being used for agricultural purposes. A Track Rent permit had been granted to the petitioner, by the authority concerned, to draw water from the Well, which is situated close to the Bhavani river, permitting the petitioner to use the percolated water from the Well, for agricultural purposes. The petitioner has been paying, periodically, the track rent, the water cess and the kist due from her. The petitioner had also been directed to pay an one time water cess, for the usage of the water percolated in the Well in question, from the Bhavani river.

(3.) It had also been stated that the petitioner has been using the water from the Well in question, without violating the terms and conditions imposed on the petitioner, while granting the Track Rent Permit, by the authority concerned. The petitioner is not drawing water, directly, from the Bhavani river. However, the impugned proceedings had been passed, cancelling the Track Rent Permit granted in favour of the petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice. No proper enquiry had been conducted before the impugned proceedings had been passed, based on an alleged report of the local Tahsildar concerned. No proof had been shown by the respondents to substantiate their allegation that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the Track Rent Permit granted in his favour. A copy of the report, said to have been submitted by the Tahsildar concerned, had not been given to the petitioner, during the enquiry.