Madras High Court
C. Indirani vs The District Collector on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.No.21262 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.21262 of 2025
C. Indirani Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector
Chengalpattu District
Chengalpattu 603 111
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Madurantakam
Chengalpattu District 603 001
3. The Tahsildar
Cheyyur Taluk Officer
Chengalpattu District 603 302
4. The Block Development Officer
Sithamur Block
Cheiyur Taluk
Churnampet Road
Chengalpattu District 603 313
5 The President
Puthirankottai Village Panchayat
Cheiyur Taluk
Chengalpattu District
6 G.Chelladurai
7. Usha Chelladurai Respondents
Page Nos.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
W.P.No.21262 of 2025
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to
remove/evict encroachments made by the respondents 6 and 7 about
5 acres on a large water course poramboke lands in Survey Nos.130/2
classified as “kuttai” and 131/3 classified as “kuttai” and 142 classified
as “Kalvai Poramboke” situated in Puthirankottai Village, Cheiyur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District, based on the petitioner's representation dated
27.08.2024 within a stipulated period.
For petitioner Mr. M. Loganathan
For RR 1 to 3 Mr. T.K. Saravanan
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For RR 4 & 5 Mr. P. Harish
Govt. Advocate
ORDER
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]
Subject matter of captioned 'writ petition' ['WP' for the sake of
brevity] are alleged encroachments in 'water course poramboke lands
in S.Nos.130/2 and 131/3 classified as kuttai poramboke and S.No.142
classified as kalvai poramboke in Puthirankottai Village, Cheiyur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District' [hereinafter 'said water body' for the sake of
convenience and clarity].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
2. Request for removal of aforereferred alleged
encroachments has not yielded results and that has necessitated
captioned main WP is the submission of learned counsel for writ
petitioner.
3. Issue notice to official respondents [R1 to R5].
Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts
notice for RR 1 to 3 and Mr. P. Harish, learned Government Advocate,
accepts notice for RR 4 and 5.
4. Learned State counsel for RR 1 to 3 submits 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].
5. 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 a Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court vide T.K.Shanmugam case [T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
Tamil Nadu] 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 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
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.'
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 Hon'ble Coordinate co-equal
Division Bench.
6. The above means that private respondents (RR 6 and 7)
who are alleged encroachers 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 RR 6 and 7. Though obvious, it is made clear that this order
does not touch upon the rights of private respondent and / or any
other noticee/s under the Tanks Act. This means that all the rights and
contentions of RR 6 and 7 and/or any other noticee/s stand preserved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
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 water body.
7. 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 for RR 1 to 3 that survey will be done within a
period of four weeks from today, i.e., on or before 15.07.2025 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 four weeks therefrom i.e., on or before 12.08.2025.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.)
17.06.2025
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
To
1. The District Collector
Chengalpattu District
Chengalpattu 603 111
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Madurantakam
Chengalpattu District 603 001
3. The Tahsildar
Cheyyur Taluk Officer
Chengalpattu District 603 302
4. The Block Development Officer
Sithamur Block
Cheiyur Taluk
Churnampet Road
Chengalpattu District 603 313
5 The President
Puthirankottai Village Panchayat
Cheiyur Taluk
Chengalpattu District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
cad
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
