Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.34160 of 20254.Mr. T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for first respondent (Krishnagiri Corporation). Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for second respondent (District Collector).5.Both learned State counsel submit that subject matter was brought to this Court by two persons, viz., R. Josephine and P.J. Josephine vide W.P.Nos.18101 and 28379 of 2025 respectively and the same came to be disposed of by this Court in and by order dated 01.08.2025 [to be noted, by a Division Bench, to which, one of us (M. SUNDAR, J.) was a Member]. Paragraph 13 is the operative portion and the most important part of paragraph 13 is paragraph 13.4. To be noted, for the sake of avoiding verbosity, this 01.08.2025 order is not extracted at this stage inasmuch as it has been extracted in its entirety in another writ petition about which there is going to be allusion infra. Alleging that the writ petitioners, in their representations, had raised issues regarding the correlation of survey and localising of the water body qua T.S.No.29 but first respondent made final orders under proviso to Section 128(1)(b), P.J. Josephine (writ petitioner in W.P. No.28379 of 2025) came to this Court by way of W.P. No.33886 of 2025 and the same came to be disposed of by this very Bench in and by order dated 03.09.2025 which reads as follows:Page 3 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.33886 of 2025andW.M.P. Nos.38020 and 38022 of 2025 in W.P.No.33886 of 2025P.J.Josephine... PetitionerVs.The Commissioner,Krishnagiri Municipality,Krishnagiri – 635 115. ... RespondentWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 28.08.2025 in R.C.No.2751/2021/F1 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2025 in accordance with the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.18101 and 28379 of 2025 and Contempt Petition No.685 of 2025.For Petitioner : Mr.V.SubramanianFor Respondent:Mr.T.Balaji,Standing CounselORDER[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]RoE (Removal of Encroachment) proceedings under '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] is the subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity).2. Writ petitioner came to this Court earlier and a detailed order dated 01.08.2025 was made by a Division Bench to which one of us (M. Sundar, J) was a party. A scanned reproduction of this order is as follows:Page 4 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 5 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 6 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 7 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 8 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 9 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 10 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 11 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 12 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 13 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 14 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 15 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 16 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 17 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 18 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 19 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 20 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 21 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 22 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 23 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025Page 24 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 20253. Mr. V.Subramanian, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that Paragraph No.13 of the aforementioned order is the operative portion. There was delay in sending representation i.e., representation could not be sent on or before 15.08.2025 but respondent has made an 'order dated 28.08.2025 bearing reference R.C.No.2751/2021/F1' (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) inter alia holding that writ petitioner is an encroacher.4. Issue notice.5. Mr.T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for sole respondent. Considering the nature of the matter, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, captioned WP is taken up in the Admission Board.6. Learned Standing Counsel adverting to impugned order, submits that representation of the writ petitioner though sent after 15.08.2025 was duly considered. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find this to be correct. Therefore, there can be no grievance for the writ petitioner on this point but on a careful perusal of the proceedings, we find that the problem presents itself in a different form and that is owing to paragraph No.13.4 of earlier order of this Court. We find that in the representation dated 18.08.2025, more particularly, paragraph No.3 thereat, writ petitioner has raised an issue regarding correlation of survey numbers and localising the water body qua T.S.No. 29 but admittedly, no joint survey has been made as set out in paragraph No.13.4. On this short point, we interfere with the impugned order but we make it clear that it is open to the respondent to now conduct a joint survey as per paragraph No.13.4 of our earlier order i.e., after putting all concerned on notice and permitting all concerned to be present during the survey and thereafter make orders afresh under proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity] setting out the details of joint survey with clarity. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter i.e., on alleged encroachment and denial of the same.7. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, impugned order of respondent is set aside (quashed) on the aforementioned short point but preserving rights and contentions of both sides and all concerned for joint survey and making of orders afresh in the manner set out supra.8. Respondent will do well to complete the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as the official business of respondent permits.9. Captioned WP is allowed albeit with aforementioned preservation of rights and observations. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petitions (WMPs) have become otiose and the same are disposed of as closed as the same having become otiose. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.)(M.S.K.,J.) 03.09.2025'Page 25 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 20256.The aforereferred orders shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this order.7.On instructions, learned State counsel for respondents submit that the writ petitioners in the captioned main WP can now join the joint survey which is yet to happen. Learned State counsel submit that the writ petitioners will be put on notice about the date and time of the joint survey.8.It is also submitted by learned State counsel that post joint survey, if any encroachment by all or any of the writ petitioners is noticed, they will be show caused vide Section 128(1)(b) of the TNULB Act, given an opportunity and their representations, if any, will be considered by first respondent and final orders under proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act will be made. Though obvious, we make it clear that coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be only subject to such final orders to be made by first respondent.9.In the light of the narrative thus far, we are of the considered view that recording the stated position of the learned State counsel will suffice to give a closure to the captioned main WP. We do so.Page 26 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 202510.Captioned main WP stands disposed of by recording the stated position of the learned State counsel. In the light of what we have written regarding coercive action, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat seeking injunction has become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed having become otiose. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (M.S.K., J.)08.09.2025cadIndex : Yes/NoNC : Yes/NoPage 27 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34160 of 2025M. SUNDAR, J.andMUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.cadTo1.The CommissionerKrishnagiri MunicipalityMunicipal Administration and Water SupplyKrishnagiri 635 0012.The District CollectorKrishnagiri CollectorateKrishnagiri DistrictW.P.No.34160 of 202508.09.20251/2Page 28 of 28