Madras High Court
R.Sekar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2023
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.16763 and 25862 of 2019
1.R.Sekar S/o.Ramachandran
2.Nithya W/o.Muthuraj
3.Rajan S/o.Sekar
4.Ammu W/o.Thamizharasan
5.Purushothaman S/o.Sankar
6.Santhana Krishnan S/o.Duraisamy
7.Mani S/o.Mannu
8.Pachaiappan S/o.Arumugam
9.Kotteswaran S/o.Kothandam
10.Marimuthu S/o.Arumugam
11.Bagyalakshmi W/o.Venkatesan
12.Sankarganesh S/o.Dhanapal
13.Devaki W/o.Balaji
14.Thillaikumar S/o.Hariappan
15.Vadivel S/o.Chithiraivel ... Petitioners
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Thiruvallur. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose the
Revision filed by the petitioners dated 13.08.2015 for grant of house site
patta to the petitioners in S.F.No.5/5 and 4/4 or any other alternative site in
Moulivakkam Village, Kancheepuram District and direct the 3rd respondent
not to evict the petitioners till the disposal of the Revision before the
Government (1st respondent).
For Petitioners : M/s.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveenkumar,
Government Advocate
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
1st respondent to dispose of the application filed by the writ petitioners for
grant of house site in the patta.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
respondents are attempting to evict the petitioners from the house site in
which they have constructed houses and are residing. In the event of
evicting the writ petitioners, they may be provided with an alternate house
site to lead their livelihood. Since the respondents have not taken any steps
to provide alternate house site, the petitioners have chosen to approach this
Court to consider their representation.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents raised an objection by stating that the petitioners are
encroachers and in occupation of water body. The land encroached by the
petitioners are classified as “tank bund and tank of Porur Eri”, which is a
water body. Therefore, the representation of the writ petitioners cannot be
considered as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
4. State has also enacted new law pertaining to protection of
encroachments in the year 2007, taking into account of rampant encroachers
encroaching the water bodies all over the country and the scope of the Act 8
of 2007 is to provide measures for chipping the encroachments, eviction of
encroachments in tanks, which are under the control and management of
Public Works Department.
5. For the Protection of such tanks and for matters incidental thereto,
it is immaterial as to how long the encroachments were made in the water
body concerned and this enactment was made pursuant to the orders of this
Court in L.Krishnan -vs- State of Tamilnadu reported in AIR 2005
Madras 311. The Apex Court made observations in Susetha vs State
Tamilnadu in Appeal (Civil) 3418/2006 dated 08.08.2006, which would be
salient to emphasize the matter of protection of water body and the question
of enjoyment in any part of water body in any manner is prohibited and
water body has to be restored to its original condition.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioners have encroached upon the
water body, they are not entitled for any relief and therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
respondents are bound to evict the encroachers in pursuant to the decision
of this Court and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
7. With these observations, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
16.06.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Thiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
W.P.No.17225 of 2019
16.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
