Madras High Court
Basheer Ahamed vs The Chief Engineer (General) on 14 July, 2025
Author: M. Sundar
Bench: M. Sundar
W.P.No.25426 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUNDAR
W.P.No. 25426 of 2025
Basheer Ahamed Petitioner
vs.
1. The Chief Engineer (General)
Water Resources Department
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2. The Chief Engineer
Coimbatore Region
Water Resources Department
PWD Campus
Coimbatore 641 001
3. The Superintending Engineer
Bhavani Basin Circle
Water Resources Department
Erode District
4. The Executive Engineer
Water Resources Department
Bhavani Sagar
Coimbatore District
5. The Assistant Engineer
Mettupalayam
Water Resources Department
PWD, Mettupalayam
Coimbatore District
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
W.P.No.25426 of 2024
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Coimbatore
Water Resources Department
PWD Campus
Coimbatore 641 001
Mettupalayam
Coimbatore Distrtict
7. P.S. Jayakumar Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to clear the
encroachments made by the seventh respondent in the Alavazhi Irrigation
Canal running between the land comprised in S.F.No.288/1A and 289/2 of
Odanthurai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District.
For petitioner Mr. P.A. Sai Govindaraja
For RR 1 to 6 Mr. K. Suresh
Government Advocate
For R7 Notice dispensed with
ORDER
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)
Subject matter of captioned ‘writ petition’ [‘WP’ for the sake of brevity]
is 'alleged encroachment in S.F. Nos.288/1A and 289/2 of Odanthurai
Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District’ [hereinafter ‘said lands’ for
the sake of convenience and clarity].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
2. Request for removal of aforereferred alleged encroachments has
not yielded results and that has necessitated captioned WP is the submission
of learned counsel for writ petitioner.
3. Mr. P.A. Sai Govindaraja, learned counsel on record for writ
petitioner is before us.
4. Issue notice to official respondents (RR 1 to 6).
5. Mr. K. Suresh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for
RR 1 to 6 and submits, on instructions 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].
6. Though obvious, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear
that due process of law vide Tanks Act necessarily means adherence to
procedure put in place by an Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court vide
T.K.Shanmugam case [T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
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 read as follows:
'15.Certain provisions of Tanks 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) .....
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
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 MLJ 771] rendered by an Hon’ble Coordinate co-equal Division Bench.
7. The above means that private respondent (R7) who is an 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 WP is taken up
with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State
counsel, dispensing with notice to R7. Though obvious, it is made clear that
this order does not touch upon the rights of R7 and / or any other noticee/s
under the Tanks Act or any other appropriate/applicable statute. This means
that all the rights and contentions of R7 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 lands.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
8. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned 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 six weeks from today,
i.e., on or before 08.09.2025 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 eight weeks therefrom i.e., on or
before 03.11.2025. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.)
14.07.2025
cad
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
To
1. The Chief Engineer (General)
Water Resources Department
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2. The Chief Engineer
Coimbatore Region
Water Resources Department
PWD Campus
Coimbatore 641 001
3. The Superintending Engineer
Bhavani Basin Circle
Water Resources Department
Erode District
4. The Executive Engineer
Water Resources Department
Bhavani Sagar
Coimbatore District
5. The Assistant Engineer
Mettupalayam
Water Resources Department
PWD, Mettupalayam
Coimbatore District
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Coimbatore
Water Resources Department
PWD Campus
Coimbatore 641 001
Mettupalayam
Coimbatore Distrtict
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
M. SUNDAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
cad
14.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:22:49 pm )
