Disposed

S.Ramalingam v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Apr 2023WP/12988/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation and the Chairman of CMDA to inspect a pond in Manapakkam for encroachments and remove any found within four months, while ensuring sewage is not mixed with the pond water.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 6, 9 and 10 to inspect the pond, remove encroachments within four months and prevent sewage mixing.

S.Ramalingam Vs The Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

S.Ramalingam

.. Petitioner

1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Secretary to Government, Water Management Department, Secretariat,

¶15

Chennai - 600 009.

¶16

3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶17

4.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶18

5.The Inspector General of Registrations, 100, Santhome Highway, Chennai – 600 025.

¶19

Page 1 of 10

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶22

6.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶23

7.The Chairman cum Executive Member, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai – 600 008.

¶24

8.The District Collector, Chennai – 600 001.

¶25

9.The Executive Engineer – Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶26

10.The Assistant Engineer, Ward – 157, Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125.

¶27

11.Sivachandran 12.Dharmaraj 13.Nataraj 14.Dhanasekar 15.Kanagaraj 16.Ramaraj .. Respondents

¶28

(Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are deleted from the array of parties as per this order)

¶29

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 10 to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 11 to 16 in the south side of pond situated in Survey No.231, Manapakkam, Ward

¶30

___________ Page 2 of 10_

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶33

125.

¶34

157, Alandur Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 125.

¶35

For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Kumar

¶36

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8

¶37

: Ms.K.Aswini Devi Standing Counsel for respondents 6, 9 & 10

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(Order of the court was made by S.Vaidyanathan, J. )

¶40

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, accepts

¶41

notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 8. Ms.K.Aswini Devi, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 6, 9 and 10. Notice to respondents 11 to 16 is dispensed with, as we are not passing any adverse orders against them in the present writ petition.

¶42

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 10 to remove the

¶43

Page 3 of 10

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶46

encroachments made by respondents 11 to 16 in the south side of pond situated in Survey No.231, Manapakkam, Ward 157, Alandur Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶47

It is stated by the petitioner that respondents 11 to 16 have encroached on the south side of pond in Survey No.231 situated at Manapakkam and had put up construction and the sewage from the said construction is let into the pond. He pleaded that the officials of the Corporation may be directed to inspect the land in question and remove the encroachment.

¶48

Learned State Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 8 submitted that respondents 1 to 5 are unnecessary parties to this writ petition and they may be deleted from the array of parties. Learned State Government Pleader would further submit that the authorities competent to look into the grievance of the petitioner are respondents 9 and 10.

¶49

Taking note of the fact that respondents 1 to 5 are

¶50

Page 4 of 10

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶53

Secretaries of the Revenue and Water Management Departments and the Commissioners of Revenue Administration and Land Administration and also the Inspector General of Registration, we are of the view that they are unnecessary parties to this writ petition and, therefore, they are deleted from the array of parties.

¶54

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6, 9 and 10 submitted that respondents 9 and 10 will cause an inspection of the pond in question and, if any encroachment is found, the same shall be removed within a period of four months in accordance with law. She would further submit that respondents 9 and 10 will also ensure that sewage is not mixed with the pond water.

¶55

The water bodies play a significant role in maintaining the ecology and environment, besides being a source of drinking water. Usage of land earmarked as waterbody for any other purpose would be detrimental to the interest of the society at large, as the State at times suffers drought and in contrast floods because water cannot

¶56

Page 5 of 10

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶59

tanks.

¶60

accumulate on account of encroachments on the waterbodies/water tanks.

¶61

In the case of J agpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶62

"19. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in, etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc . These were their traditional rainwater harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.

¶63

20. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country . Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in

¶64

Page 6 of 10

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶67

collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so-called auctions is not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop."

¶68

[ emphasis supplied ]

¶69

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has appreciated the ancestors who could foresee the value of water which is essentially required by everyone on the earth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh, supra, had further observed that encroachments made by few greedy people on ponds contributed to water shortage in the country. Therefore, we need to give sanctity to the subject.

¶70

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh, supra and also recording the submission of learned counsel for respondents 6, 9 and 10, we direct respondents 9 and 10 to cause an inspection of the pond in question and, if any encroachment is found, the same

¶71

Page 7 of 10

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶74

shall be removed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law, after notice to the encroachers, particularly, respondents 11 to 16, who would be at liberty to produce necessary documents in support of their claim that they are not encroachers of pond. We also direct the respondent authorities to ensure that sewage is not mixed up in the pond in Survey No.231 situated at Ward – 157, Manapakkam.

¶75

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.12780 of 2023 is closed.

¶76

(S.V.N., J.) (R.K.M., J.) 26.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶77

___________ Page 8 of 10_

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶80

To:

¶81

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶82

2.The Chairman cum Executive Member, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai – 600 008.

¶83

3.The District Collector, Chennai – 600 001.

¶84

4.The Executive Engineer – Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶85

5.The Assistant Engineer, Ward – 157, Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125.

¶86

Page 9 of 10

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

¶89

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. AND R.KALAIMATHI, J.

bbr

W.P.No.12988 of 2023

26.04.2023

___________ Page 10 of 10_

¶94

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Ramalingam v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramalingam v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athimoolam Vs The District Collector

Shankar Vs The District Collector

S.Velraj Vs The District Collector

M/S.Steels India Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

D. Vinnarasu, S/O R. Dhayalan Vs R. Vasantha Kumari

Manimala Vs M/s.Union Bank of India