Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.32408 of 20246The Executive EngineerWater Resources Organisation (WRO)PWD EstateKamarajar SalaiChepaukChennai 600 005 Respondents(RR 5 & 6 impleaded suo motu by Court on 20.01.2025)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the land encroachment done by the 4th respondent in the land in survey No.135 in Block No.15, Puliyur Town, Egmore Taluk, within a time frame.For petitionerMr. P. RajaFor RR 1 and 2Mr. D.B.R. PrabhuStanding CounselFor RR3, 5 and 6Mr. V. RaviSpecial Government Pleaderassisted by Mr. M.S. ArasakumarGovernment AdvocateFor R4Mr. V. Sivaramanalong with Mr. M.G. Martin ManivannanPage Nos.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024ORDER[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) is the third writ petition as between the writ petitioner and R4 (private respondent – P.M. Rajkumar). The first writ petition is W.P.No.1152 of 2022 and the same came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 31.01.2022. The second writ petition is W.P.No.5850 of 2021 and the same came to be disposed of by yet another Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 16.03.2022. 2.For better appreciation of the issue and for ease of reference, the aforesaid two orders dated 31.01.2022 and 16.03.2022 are extracted and reproduced as follows:Order dated 31.01.2022 in W.P.No.1152 of 2022:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 31.01.2022CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAMW.P. No.1152 of 2022 and WMP.No.1219 of 2022Sai Divya.. PetitionerPage Nos.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary,Housing and Urban Development Department,Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner,Greater Chennai Corporation,Ripon Buildings,Chennai 600 003.3. The Executive Engineer,Zone-IX, Greater Chennai Corporation,No.8, Lake Area 4th Cross Street,Nungambakkam,Chennai 600034. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from in any way interfering with the petitioner's premises at Old No.52, New No.66, Basha Sahib Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094 more particularly by way of locking, sealing and demolition of the same, pending final determination of petitioner's Special Revision and Stay petition dated 06.01.2022 filed under Section 80(A) and 80-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act with the first respondent.For petitioner: Mr.P.RamanathanFor R1: Mr.V.P.R.ElamparithiFor RR2 & 3: Mr.K.Raja ShrinivasORDER(The Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J)The Writ Petition is heard through video conferencing.2. Heard Mr.P.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.P.R.Elamparithi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.3. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from in any way interfering with the petitioner's premises at Old No.52, New No.66, Basha Sahib Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094.Page Nos.4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 20244. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the subject property. He would further claim that he had obtained planning permit and building permission in the year 2013 for construction of stilt plus 2 floors of residential building, but he constructed 3 floors for requirement of the family members. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the second respondent issued a Locking & Sealing and Demolition Notice under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred a special revision before the first respondent under Section 80-A of the Act. Though the appeal is pending, the respondents 2 and 3 are attempting to interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioner. It is also stated that in similar circumstances, this Court has granted interim relief to the petitioner in W.P.No.23716 & 23721 of 2021.6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would state that the special revision preferred by the petitioner is pending for consideration before the first respondent and he is ready to pass orders in accordance with law.7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the first respondent to dispose of the special revision filed by the petitioner dated 06.01.2022, within a period of six months, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.[M.K.K.S, J] [V.S.G., J] 31.01.2022' Order dated 16.03.2022 in W.P.No.5850 of 2021:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16.03.2022CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJAand THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUPW.P.No.5850 of 2021Page Nos.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024P.M.Rajkumar ... Petitioner vs.1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Division-109, Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai-600 094.3. The Executive Engineer, Zone-9, Greater Chennai Corporation, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.4. A.B.Sai Divya ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the complaints of the petitioner dated 02.12.2020, 19.12.2020, 04.01.2021 and 07.01.2021 within a time frame fixed by this Court.For PetitionerMr.K.M.RameshFor RR 1-3Mr.K.Raja ShrinivasStanding CounselFor R4Mr.P.RajaORDER (Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the complaints of the petitioner dated 02.12.2020, 19.12.2020, 04.01.2021 and 07.01.2021 within a time frame fixed by this Court.2.When the matter was called, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would state that based on the complaints of the petitioner dated 02.12.2020, 19.12.2020, 04.01.2021 and 07.01.2021, action has already been taken against the 4th respondent herein and aggrieved over the same, the 4th respondent has also filed W.P.No.1152/2022 before this Court and the Page Nos.6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024same was disposed of by an order dated 31.01.2022, directing the 1st respondent therein, namely, The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, to dispose of the special revision of the petitioner dated 06.01.2022, preferred under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, within a period of six months. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ Petition.3.Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.(T.R.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,) 16.03.2022'3.As would be evident from the aforementioned orders, earlier writ petitions, same pertain to constructions (superstructure) said to have been put up by writ petitioner and R4. We are also informed that the earlier writ petitions pertain to Survey Nos.126 and 127 in Block No.15, Puliyur Village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District but we refrain from writing anything on the same as the same stand governed by two separate judicial orders which have been reproduced supra.4.Reverting to the captioned main WP, the same pertains to alleged encroachment in S.No.135 in Block No.15, Puilyur Village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake convenience and clarity).Page Nos.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 20245.As regards RR 1 to 3, Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader assisted by Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate, is before us. As regards R4 (private respondent – P.M. Rajkumar), Mr. V. Sivaraman, along with Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan, is before us.6.We heard all the aforementioned counsel and we also had the benefit of perusing a status report dated 07.01.2025, i.e., status report from R3 (jurisdictional Tahsildar ) which has been placed before us by learned State counsel. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the aforereferred status report are of relevance and the same read as follows:'8.I respectfully submit that on 07.07.2021 the 3rd respondent in this writ petition and the 6th respondent in the aforesaid suit had measured the said property of the 4th respondent comprised in S.Nos.127/1 and 127/2 of Block No.15 of Puliyur Village and the Government poramboke land in S.No.135 of Block No.15 of Puliyur Village and submitted a report already showing that the “Government Poromboke” land, meant for canal (a water course poromboke) is encroached by the owners in Survey Numbers 126 and 127 of Block No.15 of Puliyur Village and that the entire S.No.135 of Block No.14 meant for a canal is encroached.9.I respectfully submit that the 3rd respondent had already submitted a report to the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.A4/1121/2021 dated 08.12.2021 herein with a request to remove the encroachment made by the encroachers in the water course poromboke lands as the 2nd respondent herein is the competent authority to remove the encroachment in watercourse poramboke lands.'Page Nos.8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 20247.Owing to the aforementioned averment i.e., averment that said land is meant for a 'canal', we deem it appropriate to suo motu implead Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Water Resources Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 (hereinafter 'WRD' for the sake of brevity) as R5 and Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, PWD Estate, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 (hereinafter 'WRO' for the sake of brevity) as R6. Mr. V. Ravi, learned State counsel, accepts notice for newly impleaded RR 5 and 6.8.Considering the limited scope i.e., limited legal perimeter within which the captioned main WP should perambulate, main WP is taken up with the consent of all the aforementioned learned counsel.9.In the light of the narrative thus far and in the light of relevant portion of status report of jurisdictional Revenue Tahsildar (R3) which has been captured and reproduced in paragraph 5, supra, it comes to light that WRD and WRO will be the Department and Organisation respectively which have to initiate action qua alleged encroachment. This means that 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' Page Nos.9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024(hereinafter 'the Tanks Act' for the sake of brevity) and the Rules made thereunder come into play.10.As regards the Tanks Act, the vires of the same was challenged in T.S.Senthil Kumar's case [T.S.Senthil Kumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu] being order dated 10.02.2010. This order is reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 771, 2010 Writ LR 113 and MANU/TN/0281/2010] and a Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the vires. Thereafter, in T.K.Shanmugam's case [T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] reported in 2015 (5) LW 397, a Full Bench of this Court, while reiterating T.S.Senthil Kumar, laid down the procedure to be followed for proceeding under the Tanks Act and this is vide sub sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15 which read 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, Page Nos.10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024reported 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.The above means that R4 who is the alleged encroacher and any other alleged encroacher should be put on notice when proceedings under the Tanks Act is initiated.Page Nos.11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 202412.The following order is made:(i)Appropriate authorities qua R5/R6, i.e., authorities in the hierarchy under R5 and R6, shall initiate action under the Tanks Act qua alleged encroachment in said land i.e., S.No.135 in Block No.15 of Puliyur Village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District; (ii)When the aforementioned proceedings under the Tanks Act is commenced, R4 and any other alleged encroacher shall be put on notice vide T.K. Shanmugam principle set out supra. This means that all the rights and contentions of R4 and any other alleged encroacher are left open for being canvassed when they are show caused;(iii)Though obvious, we make it clear that when R4 and any other alleged encroacher are show caused and when they show cause (if so advised and if so desired), the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order as this order does not express any view or opinion on the allegation of encroachment; and(iv)The aforereferred proceedings under the Tanks Act shall be commenced and concluded as expeditiously as the business of R5/R6 and the officers in the hierarchy under R5/R6 would permit but in any event within 12 weeks from today i.e., by 21.04.2025.Page Nos.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024Captioned main WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned WMP thereat is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.)20.01.2025cadIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoP.S.Though this WP is disposed of, list under the cause list caption 'FOR REPORTING COMPLIANCE' on 28.04.2025.Page Nos.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32408 of 2024M.SUNDAR, J.andK.RAJASEKAR, J.cadTo1.The CommissionerGreater Chennai CorporationRippon BuildingsChennai 600 0032.The Executive Engineer Zone-9, Greater Chennai CorporationLake AreaNungambakkamChennai 600 0343.The TahsildarEgmore Nungambakkam TalukSpur Tank RoadChetpetChennai4.The Secretary to GovernmentWater Resources Department (WRD)Government of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0095.The Executive EngineerWater Resources Organisation (WRO)PWD EstateKamarajar SalaiChepaukChennai 600 005 W.P.No.32408 of 202420.01.2025Page Nos.14/14