Despite illegal canal on government land, prawn farms may continue seawater access through pipelines after paying ₹5 lakh penalty, Madras High Court rules

The petitioner, a partner in two aquaculture businesses, had permission—first granted to his predecessors and later renewed in his name—to lay underground pipelines through Government poramboke lands in Survey Nos.203 and 204 to draw seawater to the farms.

The authorities found that, instead of laying the permitted pipelines, he had excavated a channel approximately 10 metres wide, 4 feet deep and 1,680 metres long, allegedly obstructing public access and access to the fifth respondent’s patta lands.

After issuing a show-cause notice, the Commissioner of Land Administration revoked the permission, directed the petitioner to fill the channel, and addressed the provision of access and proposed forest classification; the Tahsildar subsequently issued a consequential order.

The petitioner challenged both orders in these writ petitions.

Whether the Commissioner’s order revoking the pipeline permission and the Tahsildar’s consequential order could be sustained, particularly in light of the show-cause notice and the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner’s breach of the permission terms justified revocation, or whether relief could instead be granted subject to conditions.

The Court referred to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, observing that revocation of the permission could deprive the petitioner of the ability to carry on his business and impinge upon that right.

The Court also applied the terms of the permission, which authorised underground pipelines—not an open channel—through Government poramboke land.

The Court found that the petitioner had breached the permission by excavating a channel rather than laying underground pipes, and that the channel obstructed access for the public and the fifth respondent.

It therefore considered remedial action necessary, including filling the excavation.

However, it concluded that revocation would adversely affect the petitioner’s business and could impinge upon Article 19(1)(g); it consequently imposed a penalty and prescribed conditions for continued pipeline use instead of allowing the revocation to stand unconditionally.

The judgment framed, but did not expressly determine, the natural-justice question.

The petitioner was directed to fill the excavated portions of Survey Nos.203 and 204 without using solid waste or rubbish.

The petitioner was directed to lay pipelines within 30 days in accordance with the 7 January 2017 permission.

The proposed classification of Survey Nos.203, 204, 276 and 277 as reserved forest, subject to the stated access exception, was left undisturbed.

The Court directed that failure to comply with any stipulation would automatically revoke its order.

No order as to costs was made.