Dismissed¶41

V.Hamza v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Jul 2025WP/1519/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cooum river bed encroachment; Integrated Cooum River Eco Restoration Project; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act Section 7 notice; water body protection/pristine condition; eviction direction; alternative accommodation commercial vs residential; slum dwellers rehabilitation policy Government of Tamil Nadu; writ of certiorarified mandamus; writ petition dismissed no costs; Madras High Court 2025; W.P.No.1519 of 2018; reserved 23.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioners; writ petition dismissed with no costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed, and respondents directed to evict the petitioners from the land forthwith. ¶41

V.Hamza Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to petitioners; writ petition dismissed with no costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed, and respondents directed to evict the petitioners from the land forthwith.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction notices were bad in law for failure to give notices under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (the only legal ground raised by the petitioners). +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Alternative accommodation can be given only for residential purposes for slum dwellers; petitioners running petty shops and businesses cannot demand alternative accommodation as a matter of right.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The authorities erred in granting the petitioners permission to occupy the land in the first instance.

¶37

Key takeaways

A water body must be kept pristine; once allowed to be used for extraneous purposes, it would slowly lose its character.ratio¶40
The petitioners have no right over the land (a part of river bed) they were permitted to occupy.ratio¶40
The Government's rehabilitation policy for Cooum encroachers cannot be extended to the petitioners because they seek alternative commercial places.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ.; order by G.R. Swaminathan, J.), W.P.No.1519 of 2018 - Dismissed. Six petitioners occupying land forming part of the Cooum river bed under earlier permissions granted for livelihood purposes (petty shops/businesses) challenged a notice dated 22.12.2017 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD for the Integrated Cooum River Eco Restoration Project, contending that notices under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act had not been given. The Court held that the authorities erred in granting occupation of a water body in the first instance, that the petitioners have no right, that alternative accommodation is confined to residential purposes for slum dwellers under the State's Cooum rehabilitation policy and cannot be claimed for commercial establishments, and directed the respondents to evict the petitioners forthwith. WMP Nos.1928 & 1929 of 2018 closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 23.05.2025

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : .07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶8

W.P.No.1519 of 2018 and

¶9

WMP Nos.1928 & 1929 of 2018

¶10

1.V.Hamza

¶11

2.K.Fatima

¶12

3.S.Anandan

¶13

4.K.Elumalai

¶14

5.T.Daniel

6.D.Aruldas

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

¶19

Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George,

¶20

Chennai – 600 009.

¶21

2.Executive Engineer,

¶22

Public Works Department, Aaraniyaru Vadinila Kottam,

¶23

Chennai – 600 005.

¶24

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Cooum Division, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to

¶27

1/5

¶28

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

¶29

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 22.12.2017 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to provide for alternative accommodation.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.M.G.B.Jeyakumar

¶31

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Habib Rahman, Government Advocate - for R1 & R3

¶32

Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader for R2

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶35

Heard both sides.

¶36

2.The petitioners herein challenge the notices issued by the Water Resources Department calling upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the premises in question. The only legal ground raised by the petitioners is that notices under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act have not been given. The petitioners herein were originally granted permission to occupy the petition mentioned land for livelihood purposes. The petitioners have now been informed that the said land is required for implementing the Integrated Cooum River Eco Restoration Project. The petitioners do not deny that what was permitted to be occupied by them was a part of river bed.

¶37

3.We are of the view that the authorities erred in granting such permission even in the first instance. A water body has to be maintained in its

¶38

2/5

¶39

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

¶40

pristine condition always. Once a water body is allowed to be used for extraneous purposes, the water body would slowly lose its character. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly cautioned against parting with water bodies. The petitioners have no right. It is relevant to note that the consequential prayer made by the petitioners is for providing alternative accommodation to set up their businesses. The Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a policy decision to rehabilitate all the persons who have encroached Cooum river. However, the same indulgence cannot be extended to the petitioners herein as they want alternative commercial places. Alternative accommodation can be given only for residential purposes for slum dwellers. The petitioners herein are running petty shops and doing businesses in the petition mentioned land. They therefore cannot demand alternative accommodation as a matter of right. We direct the respondents to evict the petitioners from the petition mentioned land forthwith and without any delay. There is no merit in the writ petition.

¶41

4.This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

(G.R.S.,J) & (V.L.N,J) .07.2025 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No SKM

¶43

3/5

¶44

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

¶45

To:

¶46