Madras High Court
S.Jaithun Beevi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 28 October, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
2025:MHC:2497
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
and
C.M.P. No.14933 and 14934 of 2017 and 26271 of 2023 in W.A.No.1066 of
2017
C.M.P. Nos.15880 and 15881 of 2017 in W.A.No.1142 of 2017
C.M.P. Nos.15882 and 15883 of 2017 in W.A.No.1143 of 2017
W.A.No.1066 of 2017
1.S.Jaithun Beevi
2.A.Haseena ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By
its Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Management Maguuath Sha Sirguro
Wakf Board College
rep. By its Principal,
K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. ... Respondents
W.A.No.1142 of 2017
1.Kanagamani
2.Vetham
3.V.Vellaiammal ... Appellants
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
Vs.
1.Mugyyath Sha Sirguro Wakf Board College
rep. By its Secretary and Correspondent
Dr.Amanullah,
K.K.Nagar, Madurai.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
4.P.Rukmani
5.L.Sekar
6.S.Salma
7.S.Poohari
8.Sundaraj Naidu
9.S.Namasivayam
10.P.S.Michelraj
11.Mookayi Ammal ... Respondents
W.A.No.1143 of 2017
Kanagamani ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary,
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai – 625 020.
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
4.Thasildar,
Madurai South Taluk,
District Collector Office Complex,
Madurai – 625 020. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.A.No.1066 of 2017: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 24.07.2017 made in W.P. No.35335 of
2003.
Prayer in W.A.No.1142 of 2017: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 24.07.2017 made in W.P. No.6093 of
2005.
Prayer in W.A.No.1143 of 2017: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 24.07.2017 made in W.P. No.36012 of
2003.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Prakash,
Senior Counsel
for Ms.M.Karthikeyani
in all W.As
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran,
Special Government Pleader for R1
in W.A. No.1066 of 2017
for R2 and R3 in W.A.No.1142 of 2017
for R1 to R4 in W.A.No.1143 of 2017
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
for Ms.V.Srimathi for R2
in W.A.No.1066 of 2017
for R1 in W.A.No.1142 of 2017
R4 to R11- Not ready in notice
in W.A.No.1142 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is writ orders, all dated 24.07.2017 in W.P. No.35335 of
2003, W.P. No.6093 of 2005 and W.P. No.36012 of 2003 respectively.
2. The brief history of the case shows that in G.O.Ms.No.2723, Revenue
dated 17.11.1969 orders were issued permitting the Special Officer, Wakf
Board to enter upon in 28 acres of land in T.S.No.497, Managiri Kanmoi, North
Madurai Village, South Taluk, Madurai District for construction of M.S.S. Wakf
Board College pending order of alienation from Government. Subsequently, on
verification, the Government found that the actual area under possession of
the Wakf Board was 20 acres and 143 sq.ft. only. Thus, the Government in
their order in G.O.Ms.No.2231 Revenue Department dated 28.11.1998,
ordered alienation of 20 acres and 143 sq.ft. of land in T.S.No.497/2 in favour
of Wakf Board College on free of cost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
3. The other portion of kanmoi (waterbody) has been encroached upon
by individuals. The Government is of the view that Wakf Board College failed
to protect the entire area and allowed encroachers to encroach upon
waterbody. It is not in dispute between the parties that the said area has been
classified as 'Vaikkal and Managiri Kanmoi Poramboke' which are
waterbodies.
4. The Government initiated action to evict encroachers. The
encroachers moved Court at the first instance by filing W.P.No.7288 and 7809
of 1995. The learned single Judge of this Court passed an order on
30.08.2000 directing the District Revenue Officer, Madurai to consider the
claim of encroachers as well as parties to the proceedings and pass
appropriate orders expeditiously after affording opportunity to them. The
District Revenue Officer, Madurai vide proceedings dated 14.09.2001,
submitted a proposal for regularisation of encroached waterbodies. Since it
was not considered by the Government, again one Ms.Kanagamani filed
W.P.No.21644 of 2003 and learned single Judge passed final orders on
04.08.2003 directing the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai to pass orders on merits and based on the proposal of
the District Revenue Officer dated 14.09.2001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
5. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai conducted an enquiry based on the proposal
submitted by the District Revenue Officer. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Land Administration elaborately
recorded the history of the case and it is not in dispute between the parties
that the entire area has been classified as “Vaikkal” and “Managiri Kanmoi
Poramboke” i.e., waterbodies. After considering the issues, the Commissioner
of Land Administration passed final order and the operative portion of the final
order dated 06.11.2003 reads as follows:
'The District Revenue Officer, who inspected the land
under reference on 11.10.2003, has stated that the land lie in
main location of corporation, that the value of the land is
increasing day by day, that encroachments are by way of huts,
workshops and Broiler shop and that the regularisation of
encroachments will definitely affect the expansion of road.
Further, the Government in their order (P) 186, Revenue,
dated 29.4.2003 have instructed that at any event, the
encroachments in water course poramboke should not be
regularised. In view of the above, the directions issued by the
District Revenue Officer, Madurai in his W.P.3/96/J2, dated
14.9.2001 for sending proposal for regularisation of
encroachments in T.S.No.497/1 is not acceptable and the
directions issued by the District Revenue Officer, to that effect
is hereby cancelled. He should carry out eviction and restore
the land for public use.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
6. Challenging the said order of the Commissioner of Land
Administration, writ petitions filed. Final orders in the writ petitions came to be
passed on 24.07.2017, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court
appeals.
7. Learned single Judge considered the facts and circumstances and
the principles settled by the Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2015 (5) LW 397. The writ Court reiterated
that the ratio laid down by the Full Bench has been followed by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1295 of 2009 by order dated 27.11.2015. Finally,
encroachers are directed to be evicted by the respondents within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders impugned and
compliance report was directed to be filed.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would
mainly contend that the entire area in Survey No.497 has been classified as
waterbody viz., Vaikkal and Managiri Kanmoi Poramboke. Several persons
have encroached upon waterbody. Public institutions including Wakf Board
College and Law College are functioning. Therefore, the case of the appellants
cannot be considered differently and as per the proposal submitted by the
District Revenue Officer vide his proposal dated 14.09.2001, these
encroachers must be granted patta by the revenue authorities. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
Commissioner has not considered the fact that the encroachers are in
possession for long years. Therefore they must be considered for grant of
patta.
9. Proposal to the Government to provide alternate accommodation
would not serve any purpose as encroachers are poor people and if they are
sent out from the Madurai city, it would be difficult for them to lead their life in a
peaceful manner. Therefore, the case of the appellants are to be considered
for grant of patta.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General would oppose by stating that
admittedly encroachments are identified in waterbody. Regarding public
institutions, Government assigned lands and based on the assignments,
public institutions are functioning. Correctness of the assignment, no doubt, is
to be revisited by the Government. However, the appellants, who are
encroachers, cannot seek any relief from the hands of this Court. That apart,
State, considering the plight of poor encroachers, has proposed to provide
alternate accommodation in apartments constructed by Tamil Nadu Urban
Development Habitat Board (erstwhile Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board).
Therefore, encroachers can be accommodated in apartments. Thus, the order
of writ Court is in conformity with the principles and writ appeals are to be
rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
11. This Court has considered the arguments as advanced between the
parties to the lis on hand. It is not in dispute between the parties that
encroachments are identified in Vaikkal and Managiri Kanmoi Poramboke i.e.,
waterbodies. Larger portion of lands in Survey No.497 were assigned by
Government in favour of Wakf Board College and Madurai Law College is also
functioning in a portion. However, individuals have encroached upon the
canals. As far as institutions are concerned, they are assignees. Therefore, the
Government has to take a decision regarding the action to be initiated.
However, this Court is not called upon to decide the issue relating to the
assignments made by the Government in favour of Wakf Board College or
Law College. As far as appellants are concerned, they are neither assignees
nor holding patta. They are admittedly encroachers, who have encroached
upon waterbody. Therefore, they have no right to claim patta. Undoubtedly, a
welfare State has to provide alternate relief to these encroachers and in this
regard, District Collector filed a status report as under:
'4. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court in
W.A.No.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017 dated 25.07.2022 have
called for status report on the ground whether the
encroachments in S.No.497/1 Managiri Tank, Managiri
Village, Madurai North Taluk can be regularized or whether
alternate site can be provided to encroachers. As per the
instructions issued by this Hon'ble Court, the site in question
was inspected by DRO Madurai, Thasildar Madurai North
Taluk and other revenue officials.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
5. It is submitted that there are 27 encroachments in
S.No.497/1 as detailed below:
Sl. Type of No. of
No. encroachments encroachments
Commercial
establishments
establishments
I) It is submitted that 14 encroachers have erected
residential (Huts – 02, Tin roof Houses - 02, Pacca houses –
04 and Asbestos roof houses – 06)
II) 7 encroachers have constructed shops in front of
their houses. Among them 5 encroachers are running their
own shops, another 2 encroachers have left the shops for
rental purpose.
III) 4 encroachers are utilizing the site for commercial
purpose.
IV) 2 encroachers have kept the site vacant with
fencing.
6. It is submitted that all the residential encroachers
belong to Backward class community. Their annual income is
reported to be Rs.72,000/-. They are eligible to get alternative
site.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
7. It is submitted that as per the Revenue records
S.No.497/1 of Managiri Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai
District is classified as “Vaikkal and Managiri Kanmoi
poramboke”. Since, it belongs to highly objectionable water
body poramboke, there is no possibility to regularize the
encroachments.
8. It is submitted that the encroached site is located in
the heart of Madurai city, and site is surrounded with densely
populated area. Therefore there is no suitable site in the
adjoining areas to provide alternate site to the encroachers.
9. It is submitted that it is relevant to state that an
alternate arrangement could be provided to the encroachers
in Rajakkur village, Madurai East Taluk and Therkku Theru
village, Melur Taluk, by Tamilnadu Urban Habitat
Development Board under the Urban Development Scheme.
Application forms were given to the encroachers to relocate to
the TNUHDB houses constructed in Rajakkur village, Madurai
East Taluk and Therkku Theru village, Melur Taluk. But, the
eligible encroachers refused to leave the encroached site and
not signed the willingness form.'
12. Subsequently, a memo has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
In the memo, the Government of Tamil Nadu had stated that total number of
27 encroachers in the lands situate in Survey No.497/1 in Managiri Village,
Madurai District are identified. In order to provide alternate accommodation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
the appellants in the said lands, a total number of 828 apartments have been
kept vacant by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (289
apartments have been kept vacant in Rajakoor Project Area – 2 in Madurai
East Circle, 347 apartments have been kept vacant in Rajakoor Project Area –
3 and 192 apartments have been kept vacant in South Street and
Karuthampuliyampatti Village in Melur Circle). Enough apartments are
available to accommodate these encroachers. Ascertaining their eligibility in
terms of the scheme, the Government will provide alternate accommodation by
following the procedures. In this context, the landless poor
persons/encroachers have to submit applications and based on the
applications, their eligibility will be considered, ascertained and accordingly,
allotments will be provided in any one of the projects as stated above.
13. Therefore, it is made clear that the Government is ready and willing
to provide alternate accommodation to the encroachers, who all are eligible to
get alternate accommodation under the Government welfare scheme.
Sufficient number of apartments are kept vacant in Madurai area and
therefore, there may not be any difficulty for the authorities to provide allotment
to the eligible encroachers who have encroached upon waterbody.
14. Learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that certain
individuals have been assigned lands. As far as those individual assignees
are concerned, the same cannot be sustained since assignment of waterbody
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
per se is illegal and void as per the Revenue Standing Orders. Therefore,
individual persons holding assignment of waterbody are to be identified
without any loss of time and if assignments are found to be illegal or violative
of Revenue Standing Orders, all appropriate actions are to be initiated for
eviction by following the procedures and by affording opportunity to assignees
to defend their case. Since those assignees are not before this Court, this
Court is not inclined to pass any orders against those assignees.
15. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan & Ors reported in 1997 (11)
SCC 121 held as under:
'30. Encroachment of public property undoubtedly
obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology and
sanitation. Public property needs to be preserved and
protected. It is but the duty of the State and local bodies to
ensure the same. This would answer the second question. As
regards the fourth question, it is to reiterate that judicial
review is the basic structure of the Constitution. Every citizen
has a fundamental right to redress the perceived legal injury
through judicial process. The encroachers are no exceptions
to that Constitutional right to judicial redressal. The
Constitutional Court, therefore, has a Constitutional duty as
sentinel qui vive to enforce the right of a citizen when he
approaches the Court for perceived legal injury, provided he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
establishes that he has a right to remedy. When an
encroacher approaches the Court, the Court is required to
examine whether the encroacher had any right and to what
extent he would be given protection and relief. In that behalf,
it is the salutary duty of the State or the local bodies or any
instrumentality to assist the Court by placing necessary
factual position and legal setting for adjudication and for
granting/refusing relief appropriate to the situation. Therefore,
the mere fact that the encroachers have approached the
Court would be no ground to dismiss their cases. The
contention of the appellant-Corporation that the intervention
of the Court would aid impetus to the encroachers to abuse
the judicial process is untenable. As held earlier, if the
appellant-Corporation or any local body or the State acts with
vigilance and prevents encroachment immediately, the need
to follow the procedure enshrined as a inbuilt fair procedure
would be obviated. But if they allow the encroachers to
remain in settled possession sufficiently for long time, which
would be a fact to be established in an appropriate case,
necessarily suitable procedure would be required to be
adopted to meet the fact situation and that, therefore, it would
be for the respondent concerned and also for the petitioner to
establish the respective claims and it is for the Court to
consider as to what would be the appropriate procedure
required to be adopted in the given facts and circumstances.
31. It is true that in all cases it may not be necessary,
as a condition for ejectment of the encroacher, that he should
be provided with an alternative accommodation at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
expense of the State which if given due credence, is likely to
result in abuse of the judicial process. But no absolute
principle of universal application would be laid in this behalf.
Each case is required to be examined on the given set of
facts and appropriate to the facts of the case. Normally, the
Court suitable to the facts of the case. Normally, the Court
may not, as a rule, directs that the encroacher should be
provided with an alternative accommodation before ejectment
when they encroached public properties, but, as stated
earlier, each case required examination and suitable direction
appropriate to the facts requires modulation. Considered from
this perspective, the apprehensions of the appellant is without
force.'
16. Since the Government has filed an affidavit stating that they are
ready to provide alternative accommodation to the eligible landless poor
encroachers on their submitting applications and the waterbody is to be
preserved for the benefit of public at large, this Court is of the considered view
that the writ order impugned is to be sustained. Encroachment in waterbodies
would result in flooding during rainy season. That apart, preservation of
waterbody is of paramount importance. Therefore, the Government is duty
bound to protect the waterbodies in public interest.
17. In view of the above facts, the respondents are directed to evict the
encroachers from the waterbodies within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. Applications if any submitted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
encroachers to provide alternate accommodation are to be simultaneously
considered since tenements are already vacant in Madurai area. It is left open
to the encroachers to occupy the tenements if any allotted based on their
eligibility.
18. With the above directions, these writ appeals stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
[S.M.S, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
28.10.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai – 625 020.
5.The Thasildar,
Madurai South Taluk,
District Collector Office Complex, Madurai – 625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
mmi
W.A. Nos.1066, 1142 and 1143 of 2017
28.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 05:28:22 pm )
