Petitioner sought mandamus against encroachments on a tank/canal water body in Keelachur Village. State counsel stated survey would be conducted under the Tamil Nadu Tanks Act following natural-justice directions in the T.K.Shanmugam case. Court recorded this position and closed the writ petition without costs.
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.38670 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
G.Shanthi W/o.D.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
Page Nos.1/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
Prayer :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st to 4th respondents to remove the encroachments made by 6th, 7th respondents on the Mordhana Dam Canal at Keelachur Village, Pallikonda, Anaicut Taluk, Vellore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jaisivaramaraj For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader, for R5
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ,]
Captioned 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity}
has been filed complaining that there is encroachment in nkhh;jhdh ePh;njf;f jpl;lfhy;tha;, which according to writ petitioner is a water
Page Nos.2/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
body i.e., Tank.
for R1 to R4 and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for R5.
Page Nos.3/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
to (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph No.15 will be followed and the same reads 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)...................
Page Nos.4/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
(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. In the light of the above, we make it clear that rights and
contentions of R6 or any other alleged encroacher, who is show caused will be preserved for sending suitable reply.
Page Nos.5/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
7. In this view of the matter, captioned WP is taken up in the Admission Board with the consent of both sides.
8. We find from the facts and circumstances of the case that it will suffice to record the stated position of learned State Counsel and dispose of the captioned WP as closed. We do so.
Captioned WP disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 20.12.2024
Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
mk
Page Nos.6/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
To
Page Nos.7/8
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
mk
W.P.No.38670 of 2024
20.12.2024
Page Nos.8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the official respondents should act to remove alleged encroachments by private respondents on the Mordhana Dam Canal water body.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶5
T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2015 (5) LW 397]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.Shanthi W/o.D.Gunasekaran
The District Collector, Vellore
The Executive Engineer W.R.O. P.W.D Upper Palar Division
The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Section, Vellore
The Tahsildar, Anaicut Taluk
T.Venkatesan S/o.Thambaan
M.SUNDAR
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
