Madras High Court
Indhu vs The Junior Engineer on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.No.16571 of 2021
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.16571 of 2021
and W.M.P. Nos.17547 and 17548 of 2021
Indhu Petitioner
vs.
The Junior Engineer
Public Works Department (WRD)
Azerkana Street
(Near GMM CO)
Chennai 600 016 Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the
respondent in proceedings no.190 Adyar/E11 dated 26.07.2021 and
quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
For petitioner Mr. Avinash Wadhwani
for Ms. V. Srimathi
For respondent Mr. T.K. Saravanan
Addl. Govt. Pleader
------
Page Nos.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
W.P.No.16571 of 2021
ORDER
[made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.]
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
26.07.2021 issued by the respondent, directing the petitioner to
remove the alleged encroachment in Survey No.668, Ayanambakkam
Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District, measuring an extent of
0.145 acres, which is classified as channel poramboke in the revenue
records.
2. Prior to the issuance of the impugned order, the respondent
issued a show cause notice dated 16.07.2021, calling upon the
petitioner to explain why the alleged encroachment in the aforesaid
survey number should not be removed. The petitioner submitted a
reply dated 24.07.2021 in response to the said notice.
3. Upon consideration of the petitioner’s reply, the respondent
proceeded to issue the impugned order, holding that the petitioner had
encroached upon the land in Survey No.668, which is classified as a
water body.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
4. Heard Mr. Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel appearing for
Ms. V. Srimathi, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, and
Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent.
5. A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of T.K.Shanmugam
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2015 (5) LW 397, at
paragraph 15, has issued the following directions:
'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) .....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
(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
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.'
6. Therefore, in light of the directions issued by the Full
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the respondent was under a
legal obligation to consider the petitioner’s reply and thereafter pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, in the present
case, the respondent has issued the impugned order without duly
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. As such, the
impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and
contrary to the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:28:10 pm )
7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated
26.07.2021 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the writ petition is
allowed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to initiate
appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with the directions
issued by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case and in
conformity with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks
and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007).
Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.)
17.06.2025
cad
To
The Junior Engineer
Public Works Department (WRD)
Azerkana Street
(Near GMM CO)
Chennai 600 016
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 )
