Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchthe prayer seeks a direction to R1 to issue patta to the writ petitioners qua T.S.No.1140, Block No.17, Ward No.4, Chidambaram Town (To be noted, the abbreviation 'T.S.' denotes 'Town Survey').2.Mr. C.D. Johnson, learned counsel for writ petitioners in all 13 captioned main WPs, submitted that owing to the impugned order, the writ petitioners are under pain of imminent eviction/dispossession/demolition without being given an opportunity.3.Issue notice to the respondents.4.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepted notice for all four respondents and submitted, on instructions, that writ petitioners are encroachers in a water body within the meaning of 'Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)', following T.S.Senthil Kumar principle laid down by another Hon'ble Division Bench vide T.S.Senthil Kumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 771: 2010 Writ LR 113:MANU/TN/0281/2010 and T.K.Shanmugam principle laid Page Nos.3/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchdown by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court vide T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2015 (5) LW 397 reiterating/affirming T.S. Senthil Kumar principle, writ petitioners have been show caused vide 'show cause notices' (hereinafter 'SCNs' for the sake of brevity) dated 01.03.2025, the writ petitioners have responded to the same and the responses of the writ petitioners are under active consideration of the State.5.Owing to the limited legal perimeter within which the legal drill qua captioned main WPs should perambulate, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main WPs are taken up in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List.6.It is necessary (for better appreciation of this order) to set out the trajectory the matter has taken thus far and the same is as follows: a.The genesis of the captioned WPs is identical representations dated 04.04.2022 sent by writ petitioners (hereinafter 'said representations' for the sake of convenience and clarity). In and vide said representations, Page Nos.4/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchwrit petitioners have categorically admitted that they built houses in Vaaikkaal poramboke (Canal poramboke–Government land), the same are likely to be removed and on that basis, sought free house site pattas. The said representations sent by the writ petitioners are identical and one such representation, as placed before us in the lead matter being W.P.No.15343 of 2024 is as follows:Page Nos.5/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchb.Close on the heels of aforementioned said representations, R4 (Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department) issued identical notices dated 19.09.2023 and a scanned reproduction of one such notice, as placed before us, in the lead matter is as follows:Page Nos.6/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.7/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchc.Writ petitioners filed 14 writ petitions seeking to mandamus R1 (District Collector) to consider the said representations and the same came to be disposed of by a common order dated 13.06.2024 made by this very Bench and a reproduction of this order is as follows:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.06.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDARandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.P.Nos.15343, 15300, 15310, 15313, 15315, 15320, 15323, 15326,15342, 15346, 15347, 15350, 15354 and 15355 of 2020andW.M.P.Nos.16664, 16625, 16638, 16641, 16642, 16648, 16649, 16650, 16665, 16666, 16668, 16673, 16675 and 16679 of 2024inW.P.Nos.15343, 15300, 15310, 15313, 15315, 15320, 15323, 15326,15342, 15346, 15347, 15350, 15354 and 15355 of 2020W.P.No.15343 of 2024J.SanjeeviW/o.K.Jayaraman... PetitionerVs.1.The District CollectorCuddalore District.2.The TahsildarChidambaram TalukChidambaram - 608 001.Page Nos.8/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batch3.The Executive Engineer (WRO)Public Works DepartmentChidambaram - 608 001.4.The Assistant Engineer (WRO)Public Works DepartmentKansahib Canal SectionChidambaram - 608 001.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 04.04.2022 and issue patta to the petitioner's land as issued to other plots in the same street by the proceedings of DRO, Cuddalore.For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.C.D.JohnsonFor Respondents in all WPs:Mr.A.SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderC O M M O N O R D E R[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]This common order will now dispose of the captioned 14 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of brevity} and captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petitions' {hereinafter 'WMPs' in plural and 'WMP' in singular for the sake of brevity} thereat.2. Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners in all 14 WPs are before us.3. WPs have been filed with prayers for mandamus simplicitor qua identical representations dated 04.04.2022 sent to R1 (jurisdictional District Collector) by writ petitioners.4. In the hearing, Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel wanted us to treat W.P.No.15343 of 2024 as the lead matter. Therefore, we took up WP.No.15343 of 2024 (to be noted, J.Sanjeevi, Wife of K.Jayaraman, is the writ petitioner).5. Aforementioned identical '04.04.2022 representations' which constitute the nucleus of the captioned WPs shall be referred to as 'said representations' and a scanned reproduction of said representations as placed before us in the said matter is as follows:Page Nos.9/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batch6. Learned counsel affirms that identical representations have been sent by all 14 writ petitioners.7. Learned counsel also very fairly brought to our notice that notices dated 19.09.2023 have been issued to all writ petitioners and notice issued to writ petitioner in lead writ petition i.e., W.P.No.15343 of 2024 is as follows:Page Nos.10/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batch8. Aforementioned notice refers to Rule 6(1) and Form III but does not mention the title qua Rules or parent Act vide which it has been issued.9. Issue notice to respondents in all 14 WPs.10. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for all official respondents in all 14 WPs.11. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned State counsel submits that Rule 6(1) and Form III mentioned in the aforementioned 19.09.2023 notice refers to Rule 6(1) of 'Tami Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007' {hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of brevity} which is a piece of Subordinate Legislation having been made by Executive Arm in exercise of Rule making power vide Section 13(1) of 'Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity}.12. Learned State counsel also brought to our notice an order dated 13.10.2022 made by 'National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai' Page Nos.11/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batch{hereinafter 'NGT' for the sake of brevity} in O.A.No.125 of 2021 (SZ) and another order dated 20.06.2023 made by another Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.2295 of 2023.13. Considering the limited scope of captioned WPs, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board, with the consent of both sides. In the aforementioned order of NGT and another order of Division Bench dated 20.06.2023, more particularly, order dated 20.06.2023, a tabulation given by the State refers to different kinds of water bodies. Under the said Act, vide Section 2 of said Act, we find that different kinds of water bodies have been defined and one such water body defined under Section 2 of said Act is 'Tank' vide Clause (l) of Section 2 of said Act and we also find that Rule 6(1) of said Rules pertains to 'Land of the Tank'. To be noted 'land' also has been defined vide clause (g) of Section 2 of said Act. In the tabulation extracted in 20.06.2023 order of Hon'ble Division Bench, there is a reference to Vaikkal, Tank, Pond, Kulam, Kuttai, Drain Canal, Stream etc., as regards area that has been described as 'Chidambaram Non-Municipal'.14. In this view of the matter, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, making it clear that this case will not serve as precedent in all the matters under said Act and said Rules, we direct R1 jurisdictional District Collector to consider the aforementioned said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as the business of R1 would permit but in any event within a fortnight from today i.e., by 27.06.2024. Proceedings disposing of said representation shall be communicated to learned counsel on record for all 14 writ petitioners (for the sake of convenience) within five working days from the date of disposal. To be noted, learned counsel for writ petitioners very fairly stated that such service shall be treated as service on all writ petitioners in captioned WPs.15. Subject to and depending on the nature of disposal of said representations, if the disposal warrants further eviction procedure, the same shall be taken in accordance with law being said Act and said Rules or any other Statute dealing with removal of encroachment. In other words, it will be in accordance with due process of law. Though obvious if the disposal is otherwise, then proceedings will stand dropped for the present. Captioned WPs disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned WMPs are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.)(K.G.T.,J.) 13.06.2024'Page Nos.12/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchA careful perusal of the aforementioned order makes it clear that R1 has been mandamused to consider the said representations and depending on the outcome, proceed in accordance with law, i.e., by adhering to due process of law;d.Thereafter on 11.07.2024, R1 made the impugned order bearing reference Na.Ka. V3/8287537 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:Page Nos.13/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.14/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.15/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.16/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.17/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.18/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.19/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.20/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.21/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchA careful perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that R1 has taken up said representations pursuant to Page Nos.22/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batch13.06.2024 order of this Bench, considered the same on its own merits, in accordance with law inter alia by having a site survey made, requisitioning and obtaining a report of jurisdictional Sub Collector and made the impugned order. In and by the impugned order, 11 out of 14 writ petitioners (writ petitioners in W.P.No.15343 of 2024 etc. batch which was disposed of by a common order dated 13.06.2024) have been held to be entitled to free house site pattas and it has been made clear that alternative sites for grant of such free house site pattas have also been selected.e.Post impugned order, R4 has issued a notice dated 04.02.2025 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:Page Nos.23/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchPage Nos.24/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchf.Thereafter, 14 writ petitioners (writ petitioners in W.P.No.15343 of 2024 etc. batch) approached this Court by joining together and filing a single writ petition (W.P.No.5725 of 2025) with a certiorarified mandamus prayer. Certiorari prayer is qua aforementioned 04.02.2025 notice issued by R4 and the mandamus prayer, interestingly and intriguingly, sought an enquiry to ascertain the extent of the canal concerned as per revenue records and as per the order of R1 dated 11.07.2024 impugned in the instant batch of captioned WPs.g.The aforementioned W.P.No.5725 of 2025 came to be disposed of by this very Bench in and by order dated 19.02.2025 inter alia setting aside 04.02.2025 notices issued by R4, with a direction to the authorities to follow T.K. Shanmugam principle i.e., show causing the petitioners and giving them an opportunity. In this order dated 19.02.2025, it was made clear that the 04.02.2025 notices of R4 were set aside solely on the ground that T.K. Shanmugam principle has not been followed and it was Page Nos.25/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchfurther made clear that it is open to the authorities to issue notices afresh. As regards the mandamus limb qua 11.07.2024 order made by R1 (impugned order in the instant batch of captioned WPs), it was left open. 7.This Court having set out the trajectory (capturing the factual matrix of the case in a nutshell) which the matter has taken thus far, now proceeds to embark upon the legal drill at hand. 8.Interestingly and intriguingly, writ petitioners who sought to mandamus the authorities qua the impugned order of R1 vide W.P.No.5725 of 2025 are now assailing the same by way of certiorari in the captioned WPs. Writ petitioners seeking a mandamus qua impugned order vide W.P.No.5725 of 2025 necessarily means writ petitioners had accepted the impugned order. Writ petitioners have now turned around and assailed the impugned orders. This, in our considered view, is clearly impermissible.9.Be that as it may, without delving further qua this technicality, this Court also examined the equities of the matter. On Page Nos.26/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchequities, we find that 10 out of 13 writ petitioners who have admittedly encroached upon a canal (public land) and built houses, have been held to be entitled to free house site pattas. To be noted, in the earlier two rounds of writ petitions, viz., W.P. Nos.15343 of 2024 and W.P.No.5725 of 2025, there were 14 writ petitioners and in the captioned WPs, there are only 13 writ petitioners. One person who has not come before this Court in the instant batch of captioned WPs is Jayamani, wife of Jagannathan. In any event, Jayamani has also been held to be entitled to free house site patta and Jayamani also has the benefit of the alternative site that has been identified. Therefore, in effect, 11 out of 14 writ petitioners have been held to be entitled to free house site pattas. In this view of the matter, we find that equities of the matter also stand satisfied.10.Therefore, the judicial order dated 13.06.2024 made in W.P.No.15343 of 2024 etc. batch has been duly complied with as 04.04.2022 representations have been considered on their own merits and in accordance with law and 11 out of 14 petitions have been acceded to. To be noted, adverting to the tabulation in the impugned order, learned State counsel submitted, on instructions, that the three Page Nos.27/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchindividuals, viz., Sanjeevi, Balasubramanian and Nedunchezhian (writ petitioners in W.P.Nos. 9423, 9660 and 9652 of 2025 respectively) who have been held to be not entitled to free house site pattas are those who have been in Government service or spouse/father has been in Government service. To be noted, the cases of two, viz., Sanjeevi and Nedunchezhian, fall under the category of 'Government service' (applicant/spouse/father) and Balasubramanian is an ex-service man. The other limb is, pursuant to the second judicial order dated 19.02.2025 made in W.P.No.5725 of 2025, all the 13 writ petitioners have been issued SCNs dated 01.03.2025 in accordance with T.K.Shanmugam principle. When this Court refers to 'T.K.Shanmugam principle', it is a reference to sub sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph No.15 of T.K. Shanmugam judgment which reads as follows:'15. Certain provisions of Tank Act namely, Sections 4 to 10 were challenged in a Writ Petition with a prayer to declare those provisions as null and void and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that those provisions confer upon the executive, unguided and uncanalised discretionary power, since they denied to the persons aggrieved an opportunity of being heard. The said Writ petition was heard by a Division Bench to which one of us (M.Sathyanarayanan,J.) was a party. The Division Bench took note of the various decisions including the decision in the case of Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association (supra), disposed of the Writ Petitions without declaring the provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, Page Nos.28/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchsince no opportunity is given and held that there is nothing in the Act which excludes the principles of natural justice, the Act (Tank Act) does not specifically indicate that the encroachers do not have right to be heard and issued the following directions vide judgment dated 10.02.2010, reported in 2010 3 MLJ 771.(a) ...................(b)...................(c)...................(d)...................(e)...................(f)We uphold the Act, while we provide for observance of principles of natural justice within the Act itself, as under.(i) When the officer of the Public Works Department publishes the notice in Form-II in the notice boards of the offices of Village Administrative Officer, Village Panchayat Office and the Water Resources Organization, notice shall also be issued to the alleged encroacher to the effect that the survey indicates that the place in his/her occupation is an encroachment and secondly, the notice in Form-III of the Rules may be issued.(ii) On receipt of the said notice, the encroacher may give his/her objections relating to the classification of the land in his/her occupation and the nature of the encroachment within a period of two weeks.(iii) Thereafter, the authorities shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, giving time to the encroachers to remove the encroachment.'11.Learned counsel for writ petitioners very fairly admitted that all the writ petitioners have received aforereferred SCNs. Learned counsel for writ petitioners also submitted that all the writ petitioners have sent responses on 14.03.2025. As alluded to supra, learned State counsel submitted that the responses of the writ petitioners are under Page Nos.29/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchactive consideration of State and orders, on their own merits and in accordance with law, will be made shortly. This means that the T.K.Shanmugam principle has been adhered to, judicial order of this Court dated 19.02.2025 has been complied with and most importantly, writ petitioners have been put on notice and given an opportunity with regard to removal of encroachments.12.As regards the three writ petitioners who have been held to be not entitled to free house site pattas (as either the applicants themselves or their spouse/father or either retired Government servant in two cases and retired from army in one case), we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.13.Encroachments in water bodies are of serious nature and the lead case in this regard is T.S. Senthil Kumar case. Relevant paragraphs of said judgment read as follows:'18. Considering the fact that we have adopted wet land conservation policy which takes note of the environmental value and functions of wet lands and the fact that they deserve to be protected, the State may take steps to protect all water bodies and not only tanks. In L. Krishnan's case MANU/TN/0660/2005 : AIR 2005 Mad 311, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0410/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 3215, where the maintenance of ecological balance has been Page Nos.30/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchhighlighted and this Court has also specifically indicated that it is imperative to see that water storage resources such as tanks, odais, oranis, canals are not obliterated by encroachers. Right to water is a part of life and, therefore, as observed by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/0410/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 3215, demands of economic development must be made without compromising the natural resources of the earth which this generation holds in trust for future generation. The order of inter-generational equity has to be remembered and in fact in the Rio Declaration, to which India is a party, it has been affirmed that environmental protection constitutes an integral part of sustainable development and cannot be isolated from it.19. Persistent developmental activities, ignoring the need to protect natural resources, have caused irreparable damage. It is also necessary that the State shall not invoke Section 12 of the Act which results in alienation of tank poramboke lands citing "public interest". Protection of water resources is as much as a public interest issue as any other requirement. The Government may also bear in mind that water resources have to be protected while issuing patta to persons who claim to have resided in the same place for a number of years.(underlining made by us for ease of reference)14.We also notice that this is the third round of writ petitions that have been filed in quick succession by the writ petitioners. This Court concludes the matter hoping that this order would give a closure to the matter giving way for a larger public cause i.e., removal of encroachments in canal/water body, subject, of course, to orders to be made by State considering responses to SCNs as equities qua writ petitioners as well as legal requirements stand satisfied.15.Ergo, the sequitur is, all the 13 captioned main WPs fail Page Nos.31/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchand the same are dismissed. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petitions thereat also perish with the captioned main WPs and the same are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)24.03.2025cadIndex:Yes/NoNC:Yes/NoPage Nos.32/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchTo:1.The District CollectorCuddalore District2.The TahsildarChidambaram TalukChidambaram 608 0013.The Executive Engineer (WRO)Public Works DepartmentChidambaram 608 0014.The Assistant Engineer (WRO)Public Works DepartmentKansahib Canal SectionChidambaram 608 001Page Nos.33/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9423 of 2025 etc. batchM.SUNDAR, J.andK. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.cadCommon order inW.P.Nos.9423, 9632, 9635, 9637, 9646,9651,9652, 9654, 9656,9660,9682,9686 and 9688 of 202524.03.2025Page Nos.34/34