Farmers of Kangeyam-Vellakovil at tail-end of PAP Main Canal allege excess tapping of water in Pongalur Sub-Division, demand legal action as per High Court directives
Citing the Madras High Court's orders issued during 2023 and 2017, president of the association P. Velusamy said in his petition submitted to the Revenue Department authorities that water flowing through the Parambikulam Main Canal from the Andipalayam measurement point must be equitably distributed between the Pongalur and Kangeyam sub-divisions, after accounting for dewatering losses, based on the proportion of their respective irrigation areas.
Any deviation from this constitutes contempt of court. Despite repeated representations and complaints submitted to the relevant authorities through various channels, no effective action had been taken, Mr. Velusamy said.
In the water release effected currently for the third zone, nearly three times (3/4) of the total water (158.775 mcft) is being allocated to the Pongalur sub-division, while only 1/4 of water (56.15 mcft) is reaching the Kangeyam sub-division. 'We have consistently highlighted the importance of balanced irrigation to both the district administration and the PAP authorities, yet the issue remains unaddressed,' Mr. Velusamy said.
Downstream of PAP Andipalayam reading point, Pongalur sub-division was allotted 245 cusecs for 4,000 acres over a period of seven-and-a-half days. Whereas, Kangeyam sub-division received only 125 cusecs for just five days, despite having the same acreage under cultivation, he explained.
As a consequence, Kangeyam and Vellakovil where rainfall was minimal were experiencing drought conditions. Despite favourable court verdicts, the authorities failed to take meaningful action.
In the PAP case in 2023, the High Court had emphasised that 'equal distribution of water to all eligible ayacutdars is of paramount importance.' In 2015, the High Court had noted that 'corrupt activities, collusion of public authorities, either actively and passively cannot be overruled. Once the government officials are found in collusion, they are to be prosecuted for the offence of abetment, under IPC along with the offenders of the Commission of theft.'
The Assistant Executive Engineer of Pongalur Sub-Division caused contempt of the aforementioned court orders, and hence, legal action must be taken, the petition said.
Copies of the petition were also addressed to the Chief Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu, senior officials of WRO, District Collector, Superintendent of Police, president of Monitoring Committee for PAP in Dharapuram, Tiruppur DRO and Kangeyam Tahsildar.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
31 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Ezhuthachan Law College to host national moot court contest
V.R. Krishnan Ezhuthachan Law College at Elavanchery in the district will conduct an all-India moot court competition from July 5. College officials said here on Thursday that nearly 100 law institutions from across the country, including national law universities, had registered for the week-long event to be held in both online and offline modes. The winners will get cash prizes totalling ₹1 lakh. When the best moot team will get a cash prize of ₹50,000, runner up will get ₹30,000, best speaker ₹10,000, and best researcher and best memorial ₹5,000 each. Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese will inaugurate the competition on July 5. Kerala Assembly secretary N. Krishnakumar will deliver the keynote address. He will speak on the significance of advocacy training and its role in democracy. The event's finale will take place on July 12 in which High Court judges will be the adjudicators. 'Moot courts not only enrich the academic journey of law students, but also instil in them a deep respect for justice and ethical practice,' said college principal Annie Jose T.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Saif Ali Khan loses Rs 15,000 cr ancestral properties in Bhopal, declared ‘enemy property' by HC: Here's the complete list
According to the latest development, Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a trial court order in the long-standing Bhopal royal family inheritance dispute, which deemed actor Saif Ali Khan, his sisters Soha and Saba, and mother Sharmila Tagore as the successors to the properties in an appeal by heirs of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, who challenged the previous property distribution that was in support of Sajida Sultan, the Nawab's daughter from great-grandmother of Khan. The earlier decision had given the ancestral property to Sajida Sultan. However, the heirs of erstwhile, who passed away in 1960, were wanting a partition of the private properties according to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937, which was applicable at the time of the then Nawab's death, and moved trial court in 1999. However, the High Court has now directed the trial court to start afresh with the proceedings and finish the hearing in one year. This order can alter the entire inheritance structure of the Bhopal royal family. The legal challenges for Saif Ali Khan increased after the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected his plea against a government's decision to divide his family's Rs 15,000 crore worth ancestral properties in Bhopal as 'enemy property.' The proceedings are registered in a 2014 notice issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property Department, which declared the Pataudi family's assets in Bhopal under the Enemy Property Act. Some of the properties including in the ruling are Saif's childhood home Flag Staff House, the Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, Dar-Us-Salam, Bungalow of Habibi, Ahmedabad Palace, Kohefiza Property, among others. The Enemy Property Act allows the government to seize control of properties belonging to persons who migrated to Pakistan after the Partition. ALSO READ | Inside Saif Ali Khan's Rs 800 crore Pataudi Palace that sprawls across 10 acres: 150 rooms, lush gardens designed by the man behind Delhi's Connaught Place Saif had fought against the declaration in 2015 and got a temporary stay from the High Court. But, the court lifted the stay on December 13, 2024. In the latest order, they gave Saif and his family 30 days to approach and claim their rights back over the properties, but no claim has been filed within the allotted period. The Nawab of Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan, had three daughters. One of them, Abida Sultan, migrated to Pakistan, while others stayed in India. Saif is the grandson of the Abida's sister Sajida Sultan who remained in India, but the government is citing the migrant daughter as grounds to take control of the properties. On the work front, Saif Ali Khan was last seen in the Netflix film Jewel Thief. He will next appear in the fourth installment of his action-thriller franchise, Race. Additionally, he also has a film with Akshay Kumar titled Haiwaan, directed by Priyadarshan.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Pune court rejects plea to compel Rahul Gandhi to submit book in Savarkar defamation case
The special member of Parliament – member of legislative assembly (MP-MLA) court on Thursday rejected an application seeking to compel Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to submit a copy of the book he was referring to during a speech in London on March 2, 2023, in which he allegedly made defamatory remarks about Hindutva icon, Veer Savarkar. The complaint alleged that Rahul Gandhi had made false and defamatory statements during his 2023 London speech, including a claim that Savarkar had written about enjoying assaulting a Muslim man in his book. (HT FILE) 'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The burden of proof lies entirely on the complainant. Hence, the application filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected,' judicial magistrate Amol Shinde said in the order pronounced in open court on July 3. Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, appearing for Satyaki Savarkar – Veer Savarkar's grand-nephew who filed the defamation complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) last year – had argued that Gandhi's lawyer was deliberately delaying proceedings which are currently at the stage of recording the plea. Advocate Kolhatkar maintained that the book in question is essential to ensuring a fair trial. In response, Gandhi's lawyer, advocate Milind Pawar, strongly opposed the plea, stating that the trial had not yet commenced and therefore Gandhi could not be compelled to disclose any part of his defence or supporting documents. Advocate Pawar argued that the burden of proof lies solely on the complainant and compelling the accused to produce material at this stage would violate the accused's constitutional protection under Article 20(3) which safeguards against self-incrimination. Advocate Pawar submitted, 'The complainant is required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Forcing the defence to prematurely disclose material is not permitted under criminal law and violates constitutional guarantees.' Advocate Pawar further argued, 'There is no legal obligation on the defence to provide any document or material to the complainant. Such a direction would seriously prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial and his ability to defend himself effectively.' After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court noted that the case is still at the stage of recording the accused's plea, and that it arises from a private complaint. The court held that the burden of proving the allegations lies entirely on the complainant. The court observed: 'Gandhi cannot be compelled to disclose or submit any part of his defence before the trial formally begins. He is entitled to present relevant documents at the defence stage as per the law. Forcing the accused to produce material at this preliminary stage would infringe upon his constitutional protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects against compelled self-incrimination.' The complaint alleged that Rahul Gandhi had made false and defamatory statements during his 2023 London speech, including a claim that Savarkar had written about enjoying assaulting a Muslim man in his book. Gandhi had earlier been exempted from appearing before the MP-MLA court presided over by magistrate Shinde and was granted bail on a bond of ₹25,000. He was also granted permanent exemption from personal court appearances, citing his public responsibilities and security considerations
