High Court · 2025

W.P.No.18072 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDARW.P.No.18072 of 2025SaravananS/o.Perumal... Petitionervs.1.The District CollectorPerambalur.2.The Revenue Divisional OfficerPerambalur.3.The TahsildarVeppanthattai.4.MuthusamyS/o.Chinnasamy... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.02.2023 and to remove the encroachment of the 4th respondent made in S.No.415/1A of Arumbavur Page Nos.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District and to protect the water canal lying in the village.For Petitioner :Mr.G.IlamuruguFor Respondents :Mr.T.K.SaravananAdditional Government Pleaderfor R1 to R3O R D E R[Order of the Court was made by M. SUNDAR, J.]Mr.G.Elamurugu, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, at the outset submitted that an inadvertent error has crept in qua prayer as regards the survey number. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner is concerned qua alleged encroachment in S.Nos.419/5 and 419/8 and not S.No.415/1A. It is further submitted by learned counsel that S.No.415/1A is patta land belonging to writ petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the error is regretted and profusely apologized for the same. When the writ petitioner came to this Court on an earlier occasion by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.12986 of 2025, the writ petitioner had to withdraw the same owing to another error. Therefore, we make a departure as one-off case and we treat the prayer as one for removal of encroachment qua S.Nos.419/5 Page Nos.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025and 419/8. This shall not be treated as precedent.2. Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] is alleged encroachment in a 'water body, i.e., Survey Nos.419/5 and 419/8, Arumabvur Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District which is a water canal' {'said water body' for the sake of convenience and brevity}.3. Request for removal of afore-referred alleged encroachment has not yielded results and that has necessitated captioned main WP is the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner.4. Issue notice to official respondents [R1 to R3]. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for official respondents. Learned State counsel submits that survey is in the anvil and depending on the survey outcome, action for removal of encroachment (if found) will be initiated vide 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' (hereinafter 'Tanks Act' for the sake of brevity).5. Though obvious, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that due process of law vide Tanks Act necessarily means adherence to Page Nos.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025procedure put in place by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court vide T.K.Shanmugam case [T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] reported in 2015 (5) LW 397. As regards T.K. Shanmugam principle, relevant paragraphs are sub sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subparagraph (f) of paragraph 15 and the same 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, since 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) ..... Page Nos.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025(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.' To be noted, T.K.Shanmugam reiterates T.S.Senthil Kumar principle [T.S.Senthil Kumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 3 Page Nos.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025MLJ 771] rendered by Hon'ble Coordinate coequal Division Bench.6. The above means that the private respondent (4th respondent) who is alleged encroacher and / or any other encroacher/s will be put on notice/show caused, given an opportunity and action will be subject to and depending on cause shown / response of noticee/s. Therefore, captioned main WP is taken up with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and State counsel, dispensing with notice to private respondent. Though obvious, it is made clear that this order does not touch upon the rights of private respondent and / or any other noticee/s under the Tanks Act. This means that all the rights and contentions of private respondent and/or any other noticee/s stand preserved for responding suitably when show caused / visited with notices. Though obvious, for the sake of specificity, it is clarified that this Court, in instant order, has not expressed any view or opinion one way or the other regarding alleged encroachment qua said water body.7. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner, recording the stated position of learned State counsel that survey will be done within a period of four weeks from today, Page Nos.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025i.e., on or before 30.06.2025 and action if any, under the Tanks Act will be commenced as expeditiously as the business of official respondents would permit but in any event within a period of four weeks therefrom i.e., on or before 28.07.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.)(H.C.,J.) 02.06.2025Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NoSpeaking / Non-speakingmkTo1.The District CollectorPerambalur.2.The Revenue Divisional OfficerPerambalur.3.The TahsildarVeppanthattai.Page Nos.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18072 of 2025M.SUNDAR, J.,andHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,mkW.P.No.18072 of 202502.06.2025Page Nos.8/8