Madras High Court
Nagoor Gani vs The Mayor on 10 June, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.18524 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.20891 & 22554 of 2025
1. Nagoor Gani
2. Nallathambi
3. Prabu
4. Vijayalakshmi
5. Raja Petitioners
vs.
1. The Mayor
O/o.The Tambaram Municipal Corporation Mayor
Tambaram, Chennai-45
2. The Commissioner
O/o.The Commissionerate
Tambaram Municipal Corporation
Tambaram, Chennai-45
3. The Director of Municipality
No.75, Municipality Administrative Building
Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar
R.A.Puram, Chennai-28
4. The District Collector
Chengalpattu District
Chengalpattu
5. The Tahsildar
O/o.The Tahsildar
Jamin Royapettah
Pallavaram, Chennai-44
Page Nos.1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
6. The Village Administrative Officer
O/o.The Village Administrative Officer
No.31, GST Road, Essa Pallavaram
Chennai-43
7. S.P.Gandhi
President of
Pallavaram XIII Kudi Irukppor Podhu Nala Sangam
Tambaram City Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records/report of the Tahsildar dated 21.05.2024 vide reference No.
NA.KA.EN 1654/2024/AA1 pertaining to survey No.372 of Zamin
Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quash
the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from
demolishing the petitioner's building respectively constructed at
Railway's Station Road, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043 comprised in
survey No.372/1 of Zamin Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District without following the procedures as established
in law.
Page Nos.2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
For petitioners Mr. S. Silambanan
Sr.Counsel for Mr.R.Vinayaga Vishnu
For RR 1 and 2 Mr. P. Srinivas
Standing Counsel
For RR 3 to 6 Mr. T.K. Saravanan
Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]
Subject matter of captioned ‘writ petition’ (hereinafter ‘WP’ for
the sake of brevity) is the lands in Old S.Nos.372/1 (T.S. No.2), 372/2
(T.S.No.3), 372/3 (T.S.No.4) and 374 (T.S.Nos.1 to 9), Zamin
Pallavaram, Pallavaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District (hereinafter 'said
lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
2. Mr. S. Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by
Mr. R. Vinayaga Vishnu, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner,
submits that the writ petitioners are concerned only with S.No.372/1.
3. Be that as it may, R7 (S.P. Gandhi) before us, filed a writ
petition (we are informed that it is a PIL) being W.P.No.10863 of 2024
and the same was disposed of by another Hon’ble Division Bench in
and by an order dated 22.04.2024 which reads as follows:
Page Nos.3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
Page Nos.4/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
Page Nos.5/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
Page Nos.6/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
4. Thereafter, with regard to Survey No.372/1, notices were
issued under 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of
Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' (hereinafter
Page Nos.7/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
'Tanks Act' for the sake of brevity). The same were assailed in this
Court by three noticees, viz., G. Ramesh, K. Mohammed Mohideen and
Abdul Rahuman vide three writ petitions being W.P.Nos.13403, 13406
and 13408 of 2025 respectively, which came to be disposed of by this
Court vide a common order dated 16.04.2025 and the same reads as
follows:
'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P. No.13403 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15011 of 2025
W.P. No.13406 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15017 of 2025
W.P. No.13408 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15019 of 2025
G. Ramesh Petitioner in WP No.13403/2025
K. Mohammed Mohideen Petitioner in WP No.13406/2025
Abdul Rahuman Petitioner in WP No.13408/2025
vs.
1. The Commissioner
Tambaram Municipal Corporation
Tambaram
2. The District Collector
Chengalpattu District
3. The Tahsildar
Tambaram
4. The Executive Engineer
Water Resources Department
Tambaram Respondents in all writ petitions
Page Nos.8/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
W.P.No.18524 of 2025
Prayer in W.P.No.13403 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the
first respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 under
Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of
Encroachment Act, 2007, by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary
and out of jurisdiction and also forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from
evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.60/34 to an
extent of 100 sq. ft. in Survey No.372/3, T.S.No.2, Ward – G, Block –
5, Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District without following due process of law.
Prayer in W.P.No.13406 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the
first respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 under
Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of
Encroachment Act, 2007, by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary
and out of jurisdiction and also forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from
evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.45 to an
extent of 120 sq. ft. in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2, Ward – G, Block –
5,Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District, without following due process of law.
Prayer in W.P.No.13408 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, particularly
respondents 1 to 3 from evicting the petitioner from the property
bearing Door No.53 to an extent of 100 sq. ft. in Survey No.372/1,
T.S.No.2, Ward – G, Block – 5, Railway Station Road, Jameen
Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, without
following due process of law under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks
and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007.
For petitioner Mr. G. Mohammed Aseef
in all WPs
For respondents Mr. T.K. Saravanan
in all WPs Addl. Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
[made by M. SUNDAR, J.]
Captioned 'writ petitions' (hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of
brevity) were taken up together at the request of Mr. G. Mohammed
Aseef, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
2. Learned counsel on record for writ petitioners submits
that the captioned WPs are directly and squarely covered by common
order dated 02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and
11777 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat.
3. Issue notice to respondents.
4. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government
Pleader, accepts notice for all four respondents and learned State
counsel also fairly submits that captioned WPs are directly and
squarely covered by aforereferred common order dated 02.04.2025
made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of 2025 and W.M.P.
Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat.
5. Owing to the narrative thus far, we find that the legal
landscape within which the captioned WPs should perambulate is
vastly descoped and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on
both sides, captioned main WPs were taken up in the Admission
Board.
6. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to
extract and reproduce the aforereferred common order dated
02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of 2025
and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat. We do so and the
same reads as follows:
'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P.Nos.11767 and 11777 of 2025
&
W.M.P Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025
Ganesan ... Petitioner
Mohammed Saleem Thekku ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commissioner
The Office of Commissionerate
Tambaram Municipal Corporation
2. The District Collector
Tambaram
Chengalpattu District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
3. The Tahsildar
Tambaram
4. The Village Administrative Officer
Jameen Pallavaram
Tambaram
5. The Executive Engineer
Water Resources Department
Tambaram ... Respondents
in both WPs
(*R5 suo motu impleaded vide this order)
W.P.No. 11767 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing
the respondents particularly 2nd to 4th respondents from evicting the
petitioner from the property bearing Shop No.59 situated at Railway
Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District comprised in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2 without
passing any appropriate orders under Section 7 of the Protection of
Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act,2007.
W.P.No. 11777 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing
the respondents particularly 2nd to 4th respondents from evicting the
petitioner from the property bearing Shop No.58 situated at Railway
Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District comprised in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2 without
passing any appropriate orders under Section 7 of the Protection of
Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act,2007.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
in both writ petitions
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
in both writ petitions Additional Govt. Pleader
for R1 to R5
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
In captioned 'Writ Petitions' ['WPs' in plural and 'WP' in
singular for the sake of brevity], two notices, both signed by R1
(Commissioner, Tambaram Municipal Corporation) on 12.08.2024 and
captioned 'Show-cause Notice' ['SCN' in singular and 'SCNs' in plural for
the sake of brevity] have been assailed. These two notices shall be
collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of brevity,
convenience and clarity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
2. Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, learned counsel on record for the
writ petitioners is before us. Adverting to the impugned notices,
learned counsel submits that the subject matter of impugned notices is
'land comprised in Survey No.372/1, Town Survey No.2, Ward G, Block
5 in Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Corporation, Zone – 2,
Chengalpattu District and the brick and mortar superstructure standing
on the same' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience
and clarity].
3. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that R1 does
not have the authority to issue SCNs as the same are 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
convenience, clarity and brevity}. Notwithstanding this position, writ
petitioners have responded to the impugned notices in and vide
objections dated 27.03.2025 but without considering the objections or
passing appropriate orders, hectic efforts are underway to remove writ
petitioners from said property branding them as 'encroachers' under
Tanks Act is learned counsel's further say.
4. Issue notice to respondents.
5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader
accepts notice for all four respondents and submits that one
Mr.S.P.Gandhi {President of Pallavaram 13th Ward Kudiiruppor Podhu
Nala Sangam} filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10863 of 2024 with a plea
for removal of encroachment/s, the same came to be disposed of by a
Hon'ble Division Bench on 22.04.2024 and the impugned notices have
been issued pursuant to such orders.
6. This Court carefully considered the case file and the
submissions.
7. This Court finds that the scope of the captioned WPs is very
limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on both
sides, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board.
8. The first point urged by learned counsel for writ petitioners
is a jurisdiction point. A perusal of the impugned notices styled 'SCNs'
makes it clear that the same have been issued by R1 purportedly under
Section 6(3) of Tanks Act. Section 6(3) talks about publication of a
notice in the prescribed manner pointing out the boundaries of the
Tank. Therefore, this provision does not enure to the benefit of the
respondents insofar as impugned notices i.e., SCNs are concerned.
9. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to respectfully
advert to order dated 22.04.2024 made by another Hon'ble Division
Bench in W.P.No.10863 of 2024 about which there is allusion supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
Paragraph 2 of this 22.04.2024 order makes it clear that Survey No.372
has been sub-divided into Survey Nos.372/1, 372/2 and 372/3 which
are pond, pattai and temple respectively. To be noted, as regards
impugned notices, we are concerned only with Survey No.372/1, which
is a pond. This means that the ratio laid down by a Hon'ble Full Bench
of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam case i.e., T.K.Shanmugam Vs. The State
of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 9343
comes into play. In T.K.Shanmugam, the procedure to be followed as
regards removal of encroachment under Tanks Act as laid down in
T.S.Senthil Kumar case {T.S.Sentil Kumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
and others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 1347} has been
reiterated. Relevant paragraphs in T.K.Shanmugam case are sub-sub-
paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph No.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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
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.'
We respectfully follow the aforesaid principle put in place by a
Hon'ble Full Bench.
10. As regards the aforementioned procedure, Form II under
'Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules,
2007' [hereinafter 'Tanks Rules' for the sake of brevity] is qua sub-rule
(2) of Rule 5 which talks about handing over a chart and register to
'Officer' referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 talks
about 'Officer of Public Works Department', survey and demarcation of
the limits of the Tanks. Therefore, notice to alleged encroacher which
is simultaneous qua Form II vide T.K.Shanmugam principle has to be
issued by 'Officer', to be noted, 'Officer' is a term of Art i.e., a defined
term having been defined under Rule 2(1)(d) of Tanks Rules, which
reads as follows:
Rule 2(1)(d) - “Officer” means the Assistant Engineer
or Junior Engineer or Overseer of the Water
Resources Organization of Public Works Department,
in charge of the tanks lying in his jurisdiction for the
purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Acts and
the Rules'
11. It is clear as daylight that R1 does not qualify as an 'Officer'
vide Rule 2(1)(d) of Tanks Rules. In this view of the matter, we suo
motu implead Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Tambaram as R5 and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government
Pleader accepts notice for R5 also.
12. Before we proceed further, we make it clear that as regards
Survey No.372/2, as the same is pattai, if any removal of encroachment
proceedings are to be embarked upon, the same shall be under 'the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)'
[hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience] by Officers
specified thereat. Likewise, as regards Survey No.372/3, it has to be
either under 'The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' [hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act'
for the sake of brevity], more particularly Section 78 thereat and / or
under said 1905 Act. Either way, the alleged encroachers have to be
put on notice/show-caused and opportunity has to be given.
13. As we sustain the jurisdiction point urged by learned
counsel for writ petitioners, we deem it unnecessary to embark upon a
legal drill qua the second point which turns on the responses not being
considered.
14. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive
reasoning thus far, the following order is made:
i) Impugned notices being notices dated
12.08.2024 are set aside;
ii) Impugned notices are set aside on
jurisdictional point and therefore, though obvious
we make it clear that we have not expressed any
view or opinion on the merits of the matter much
less about alleged encroachments one way or the
other;
iii) It is made clear that if the above exercise
is undertaken along with Form II, Form III shall also
be issued as made clear in T.K.Shanmugam
principle;
iv) We preserve all the rights and
contentions of State to issue notice afresh by a
competent officer i.e., competent qua Tanks Rules
keeping in mind allusion and elucidation supra,
more particularly the principle put in place by a
Hon'ble Full Bench i.e., T.K.Shanmugam principle;
v) If the above exercise is undertaken,
axiomatically we preserve all the rights and
contentions of the writ petitioners to respond to the
same, to be noted, this would be vide sub-sub-
paragraph (ii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15
of T.K.Shanmugam;
vi) If the above scenario unfurls, the
authorities shall consider the objections and pass
appropriate orders vide sub-sub-paragraph (iii) of
sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
Captioned main WPs disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. As the impugned notices have
been set aside, captioned WMPs thereat have
become otiose and therefore, the same are disposed
of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)
02.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gpa
P.S. I: Upload forthwith
P.S.II : All concerned including Registry of Madras High Court
to act forthwith on the uploaded soft copy of this proceedings
as uploaded in the official website of this Court. To be noted,
the soft copies uploaded in the official website of this Court are
water marked, besides being QR Coded.'
7. As regards the captioned three main WPs, there is one
additional fact in respect of W.P.No.13403 of 2025. This additional fact
is, the writ petitioner (G. Ramesh, son of Gopal) has filed aforereferred
suit in O.S.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Pallavaram, arraying R1 (Commissioner, Tambaram
City Municipal Corporation) as the sole defendant, with regard to the
same property which is subject matter of the impugned notices.
Learned counsel very fairly made an endorsement that the writ
petitioner, viz., G.Ramesh, son of Gopal, will withdraw the
aforereferred suit in O.S.No.63 of 2025 and a scanned reproduction of
the endorsement is as follows:
8. Registry to mark a copy of this order to learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, and on being uploaded in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
official website of this Court or on this order being produced before
learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, shall give a
closure to the suit in an appropriate manner. In other words, the suit
will not proceed any further. It is further to be noted that there will be
a post script in this regard which shall be read as an integral part and
parcel of this order. In all other aspects, aforereferred common order
dated 02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of
2025 and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat shall be read
as an integral part and parcel of this common order and in this view of
the matter, we make the following order:
i) Impugned notices in W.P. Nos.13403 and
13406 of 2025 being notices dated 12.08.2024 are set
aside;
ii) Impugned notices are set aside on
jurisdictional point and therefore, though obvious we
make it clear that we have not expressed any view or
opinion on the merits of the matter much less about
alleged encroachments one way or the other;
iii) It is made clear that if the above exercise is
undertaken along with Form II, Form III shall also be
issued as made clear in T.K.Shanmugam principle;
iv) We preserve all the rights and contentions of
State to issue notice afresh by a competent officer i.e.,
competent qua Tanks Rules keeping in mind allusion and
elucidation supra, more particularly the principle put in
place by a Hon'ble Full Bench i.e., T.K.Shanmugam
principle;
v) If the above exercise is undertaken,
axiomatically, we preserve all the rights and contentions
of the writ petitioners to respond to the same. To be
noted, this would be vide sub-sub-paragraph (ii) of sub-
paragraph (f) of paragraph 15 of T.K.Shanmugam; and
vi) If the above scenario unfurls, the authorities
shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders
vide sub-sub-paragraph (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of
paragraph 15 of T.K. Shanmugam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
9. Captioned three main WPs are disposed of in the
aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous
petitions thereat are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)
16.04.2025
cad
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
P.S. I Upload forthwith.
P.S.II All concerned, including Registry of Madras High Court, to
act forthwith on the uploaded soft copy of this proceedings
as uploaded in the official website of this Court. To be
noted, the soft copies uploaded in the official website of
this Court are water marked, besides being QR Coded.
P.S.III Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Pallavaram, to give a closure to O.S.No.63 of 2025 on this
order being brought to the notice of learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.
P.S.IV Though disposed of, list under caption 'FOR COMPLIANCE'
of the withdrawal of suit on 23.04.2025.'
5. Reverting to the case on hand, learned Senior Counsel for
writ petitioner submits that the revenue classification of S.No.372/1 is
Oor Natham, meaning Village Natham and it is not a water body. In
support of this contention, photocopy of ‘A’ register which has been
filed as part of the typed set of papers was pressed into service and a
scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
6. Learned Senior Counsel for writ petitioner submits that a
communication dated 21.05.2024 bearing reference
Na.Ka.No.1654/2024/M1 from R5 to R2 which talks about Survey
Nos.372/1, 372/2 and 372/3 being encroached upon, has been called
in question in the captioned WP as the writ petitioners have been put
under pain of dispossession and demolition by the official respondents.
7. Issue notice to official respondents.
8. Mr. P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice
for RR 1 and 2 and Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government
Pleader accepts notice for RR 3 to 6.
9. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel, submits that
survey has been conducted and action under the Tanks Act is in the
anvil.
10. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner, submits, on instructions, that writ petitioners
have not been put on notice about the survey, survey was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
conducted in their presence and in any event, as S.No.372/1 is
classified as Oor Natham, the Tanks Act will not be attracted.
11. If action under the Tanks Act is resorted to, the writ
petitioners have to be put on notice, given an opportunity to respond
and orders will have to be made on the same. This is vide the
mechanism put in place by a Full Bench of this Court in
T.K.Shanmugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in
2015 SCC OnLine Mad 9343. To be noted, since the relevant portion
of T.K. Shanmugam case has already been extracted in paragraph 4
supra, to avoid prolixity, the same is not extracted here.
12. Learned State counsel submits that the above procedure
will be strictly adhered to. We express no opinion on whether the
Tanks Act will be attracted. We leave open the question for the writ
petitioners to respond if they are visited with notices under the Tanks
Act. If this point is raised by the petitioners, the same has to be
considered and orders will have to be made in accordance with
T.K.Shanmugam principle. Orders so made have to be duly served on
each of the writ petitioners under due acknowledgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
13. If the final orders are in favour of the writ petitioners, that
would be curtains on the matter. If it happens to the contrary, the
same shall be kept in abeyance for a fortnight from the date of service
of the orders on each of the writ petitioners so as to provide a window
to each of the writ petitioners to assail the orders, if so advised and so
desired.
14. As regards R7 (private respondent), a PIL petitioner is only
an informant. However, we make it clear that all the rights and
contentions of R7 remain preserved and this order does not touch
upon the rights and contentions of R7 in any manner and therefore, we
dispense with notice to R7. In this view of the matter, captioned main
WP was taken up with the consent of learned counsel for writ
petitioners and learned State counsel.
15. Captioned WP stands disposed of recording the stated
position of learned State counsel with the aforementioned observations
and directives. We make it clear that coercive action, if any and if that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
be so, will be subject to and depending on orders to be made in the
aforesaid manner with a rider, as stated above, that the same shall be
kept in abeyance in the event of the same being adverse to the writ
petitioners and since this douses the anxiety of the writ petitioners
with regard to being under pain of dispossession/demolition, captioned
WMPs thereat stand disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.)
10.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
cad
To
1. The Mayor
O/o.The Tambaram Municipal Corporation Mayor
Tambaram, Chennai-45
2. The Commissioner
O/o.The Commissionerate Tambaram Municipal Corporation
Tambaram, Chennai-45
3. The Director of Municipality
No.75, Municipality Administrative Building
Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar
R.A.Puram, Chennai-28
4. The District Collector
Chengalpattu District
Chengalpattu
5. The Tahsildar
O/o.The Tahsildar
Jamin Royapettah
Pallavaram, Chennai-44
6. The Village Administrative Officer
O/o.The Village Administrative Officer
No.31, GST Road, Essa Pallavaram
Chennai-43
10.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
