The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging R6(1) notice branding the petitioner an encroacher. Relying on revenue records showing the land as government poramboke/pond, the Court found no infirmity in the order and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
B.Abdul Malick
.. Petitioner
v.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in impugned notice of the 2nd respondent dated 25.07.2022 under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta to the property in S.No.160/1 2A, Urappakkam Village, Vandalur
Page 1 of 7
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
Taluk, Chengalpattu District on the basis of the assignment patta in Patta No.89 dated 18.11.1973, on the basis of the petitioner's objections/representation dated 30.07.2022, within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Subramanian for Dass and Viswa Associates For Respondents :: Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 25.07.2022 issued by the Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union, the second respondent herein under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007.
Page 2 of 7
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
impugned order, argued that being a resident of Urappakkam Village, the land covered in Survey No.160/1-2A was originally assigned to one Mr.Rathina Mudaliar, S/o Murugesa Mudaliar by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment), Saidapet vide proceedings dated 18.11.1973 in Patta No.89 having an extent of 3,000 sq.ft. Subsequent to the assignment, the assignee Mr.Rathina Mudaliar executed a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration vide Document No.6147 / 1980 dated 23.11.1980 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram in favour of the petitioner's father Mr.B.Basha Sahul Hameed. After the above said purchase, the petitioner's father obtained building permission vide Reference No.826/96/97 dated 20.02.1996 from the second respondent and he had also put up a superstructure. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also stated that the petitioner has been paying the property tax to the local panchayat. But all of a sudden, the Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union, the second respondent herein issued the notice dated 26.07.2022 under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007
_____________ Page 3 of 7_
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
in Form-III branding the petitioner as an encroacher and called upon him to remove the encroachment within a period of 7 days. A detailed explanation dated 30.07.2022 also has been given to the respondents through registered post narrating the facts along with the documents to prove the petitioner's lawful right and title over the property. But without replying to the same, the second respondent issued the impugned notice as if the petitioner is an encroacher of the land covered in Survey No.160/2, which is classified as a tank. When the petitioner is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the small extent of land in Survey No.160/1-2A, on the basis of the assignment issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide the assignment proceedings dated 18.11.1973, the respondents cannot ask the petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of the land in question.
Page 4 of 7
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
the land in Survey No.160/1 to an extent of 0.06.0 Hectares is a Government poramboke and the land in Survey No.160/2 to an extent of 1.64.5 Hectares is also a Government poramboke and entered as Pond of Urappakkam Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpet District. It also shows that the petitioner, encroaching into the water course, had constructed a building and enjoying the same.
Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.K.K., J.) Index : yes/no 26.09.2022 ss
_____________ Page 5 of 7_
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
To
Page 6 of 7
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
ss
W.P.No.21027 of 2022
26.09.2022
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a respondent was correct in issuing a notice under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007 branding the petitioner as an encroacher based on re
Whether the petitioner's claim of lawful possession via assignment patta from 1973 overrides the statutory obligation to vacate government water bodies.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Abdul Malick
District Collector, Chengalpattu District
Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union Chengalpattu
Tahsildar, Vandalur Taluk Chengalpattu District
T. Raja
D. Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
