Madras High Court
J.Ebinezer Christho Das vs The Collector on 26 July, 2022
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.23751 of 2007, W.P.No.19718 of 2008
and W.P.No.11139 of 2009
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2008 & W.M.P.No.1 of 2009
W.P.No.23751 of 2007
J.Ebinezer Christho Das ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kolluthuvancheri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluka,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider
and pass orders on the representation dated 5-2-2007 relating to claim of
benefit of G.O.Ms.No.854 Revenue Department, dated 19.01.07 and on
petition dated 13-6-2007 relating to the submission of report and
documents as per the proceedings of the first respondent OM No.
7281/2007 AA2, dated 8-3-2007 and Na.Ka. 23317/2007 AA P2, dated 05-
06-2007 in respect of the petitioner land at Survey No.165 at
Koluthuvancheri Village, Kancheepuram district.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
W.P.No.19718 of 2008
1.T.Velpandian
2.R.Lakshmi
3.R.Radha
4.K.Murugan
5.T.Murugan
6.V.Velusamy
7.G.Kuppammal
8.P.Sankar
9.K.Murugesan
10.J.Ebinezer Christho Das
11.K.Chinnasamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluka,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore
the possession of the petitioners house lying at Raja Ganapathy Nagar,
Kolluthuvancheri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District
comprised in Survey No.165, measuring to an extent of about 1200 sq.ft.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
W.P.No.11199 of 2009
1.P.Bhagavathiammal
2.P.Govinthammal
3.A.Renuka
4.S.Rojaramani
5.S.Murthy
6.K.Kala
7.R.Srinivasan
8.M.Kothandaraman
9.B.Narasimhan
10.D.Muniammal
11.T.Sankar
12.V.Lakshmanan
13.J.Muniappan
14.C.Panchavarnam
15.R.Perumal Jothi
16.S.Venugopal
17.G.Babu
18.E.Devakumari ... Petitioners
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore
the possession of the petitioners house lying at Ganapathy Nagar,
Kolluthuvancheri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District
comprised in Survey No.165, measuring to an extent of about 1200 sq.ft.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikannan
in all W.Ps
For Respondents : Mr.C.Sathish
in all W.Ps Government Advocate
ORDER
All these writ petitions were filed for a direction to the respondents to
consider the representations made by the petitioners, wherein, the
petitioners have sought for restoration of their possession in the subject
property.
2.When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 19.07.2022, this
Court passed the following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
On going through the writ petitions, this Court does not
find anything surviving in these writ petitions, since there was
no interim orders passed in favour of the petitioner. Even in the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the
petitioners were in possession of the property which was
classified as a water body and hence, the respondents have
questioned the very locus standi of the petitioners to seek for
the restoration of their possession in the property.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
he will argue all these writ petitions finally next week. Post
these writ petitions finally on 26.07.2022. It is made clear that
no further adjournments will be granted in this case.
3.In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it has been
stated as follows:
6.As regards, the averments in paragraph 3 to 5, the
petitioners have no locus-standi to raise suspicion over the
classification of the lands lying at different survey numbers 163,
138/1, 166/1A, 164/1A, 161, 162,167 and 168 at this distance
of time, since the aforesaid lands were declared as patta lands
by the settlement authorities during the settlement undertaken
as per the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion in to
Ryotwari) Act 1948. The decision taken by the Settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
authorities in accordance with the provision of the aforesaid Act
cannot be questioned at this distance of time. Similarly, the
classification of the land in S.No.165 was also settled as, "Eri
ulvoy", by the settlement authorities in accordance with the
provision of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act 1948 and any alteration / correction in the
classification of land is not at all permissible in view of lack of
provision for the same in the aforesaid Act and hence the
averments raised in these paragraphs are not sustainable in
law.
7. As regards, the averments in paragraph 6 to 10, it is
submitted that though the Government have issued Orders in
G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated: 30.12.2006, for
the regularization of encroachments in Government poramboke
lands including the encroachments in water bodies and to grant
patta to the encroachers, later on, in view of the direction
dated:04.10.2007 of the First Bench of the Hon'ble Court in
W.P.No.25776 of 2006 and W.P.No.17915 of 1993 and as per
the instructions of the Government dated:09.07.2007, the issue
of house site pattas to the encroachers in water bodies has been
banned. It is also submitted that according to the provision of
the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of
Encroachment Act 2007 (Act No. 8 of 2007), no encroachments
in water bodies are permitted and as such, the restoration of
possession of the petitioner in the land in S.No.165, which is
classified as "Eri ulvoy", a watercourse poramboke does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
deserve any consideration. It is also submitted that so far as the
petitioners are concerned, they are purely encroachers of the
Government water course poramboke land classified as "Eri
ulvoy" and in the absence of any titular deeds over the land in
their favour, they have no locus-standi to question the
classification of the land. It is further submitted that since the
land under encroachment by the petitioners is a water course
poramboke land as per the Revenue records its requirement or
otherwise cannot be a criterion for the eviction, since the
encroachments in all the water bodies are liable for eviction, as
already held by the Hon'ble Court in various writ petitions.
Hence, the petitioners are neither entitled for house site patta in
the land from which they have been evicted nor entitled for
restoration of the possession of their houses in the subject land.
It is further submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for
any compensation or placement also since they are purely
encroachers of the Government poramboke land.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
respondents are acting in a arbitrary manner, since the petitioners have
been evicted on the ground that they were in possession of a water body
and whereas, the respondents have granted patta to the adjacent occupiers
who are also occupying a water body. The learned counsel therefore
submitted that the petitioners must also be treated in the same manner and
their possession must be restored and patta must be granted in their favour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
5.In the considered view of this Court, this Court exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
compelled to enforce a negative equality and perpetuate an illegality. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in more than one judgment has reiterated this legal
position. For proper appreciation, this Court takes note of the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration and Another
vs. Jagjit Singh and Another reported in 1995 1 SCC 745 and
Directorate of Film Festivals and Others vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and
Others reported in 2007 4 SCC 737.
6.In view of the above, the relief as sought for by the petitioners
cannot be granted by this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has
already issued directions to the respondents not to issue house site pattas
to the encroachers in the waterbodies and to take steps to evict them under
the relevant enactment. Therefore, if any person has been granted a patta
and they are permitted to occupy the water body, as claimed by the
petitioners, the directions issued by the Division Bench will bind the
respondents and steps must be taken to restore the waterbody by evicting
the illegal occupants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
7.In the result, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.07.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluka,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32965 of 2004
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
W.P.No.23751 of 2007, W.P.No.19718 of 2008
and W.P.No.11139 of 2009
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2008 & W.M.P.No.1 of 2009
26.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
