Nagoor Gani Vs the Mayor

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records/report of the Tahsildar dated 21.05.2024 vide reference No. NA.KA.EN 1654/2024/AA1 pertaining to survey No.372 of Zamin Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from demolishing the petitioner's building respectively constructed at Railway's Station Road, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043 comprised in survey No.372/1 of Zamin Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District without following the procedures as established in law.

¶28

Page Nos.2/24

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶31

For petitioners Mr. S. Silambanan Sr.Counsel for Mr.R.Vinayaga Vishnu For RR 1 and 2 Mr. P. Srinivas Standing Counsel For RR 3 to 6 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶32

ORDER

¶33

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶34

Subject matter of captioned ‘writ petition’ (hereinafter ‘WP’ for the sake of brevity) is the lands in Old S.Nos.372/1 (T.S. No.2), 372/2 (T.S.No.3), 372/3 (T.S.No.4) and 374 (T.S.Nos.1 to 9), Zamin Pallavaram, Pallavaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District (hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶35

Mr. S. Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. R. Vinayaga Vishnu, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, submits that the writ petitioners are concerned only with S.No.372/1.

¶36

Be that as it may, R7 (S.P. Gandhi) before us, filed a writ petition (we are informed that it is a PIL) being W.P.No.10863 of 2024 and the same was disposed of by another Hon’ble Division Bench in and by an order dated 22.04.2024 which reads as follows:

¶37

Page Nos.3/24

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶40

Page Nos.4/24

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶43

Page Nos.5/24

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶46

Page Nos.6/24

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶49

Thereafter, with regard to Survey No.372/1, notices were

¶50

issued under 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' (hereinafter

¶51

Page Nos.7/24

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶54

'Tanks Act' for the sake of brevity). The same were assailed in this Court by three noticees, viz ., G. Ramesh, K. Mohammed Mohideen and Abdul Rahuman vide three writ petitions being W.P.Nos.13403, 13406 and 13408 of 2025 respectively, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide a common order dated 16.04.2025 and the same reads as follows:

¶55

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶56

DATED : 16.04.2025

¶57

CORAM:

¶58

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶59

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶60

W.P. No.13403 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15011 of 2025 W.P. No.13406 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15017 of 2025 W.P. No.13408 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15019 of 2025

¶61

G. Ramesh Petitioner in WP No.13403/2025 K. Mohammed Mohideen Petitioner in WP No.13406/2025 Abdul Rahuman Petitioner in WP No.13408/2025 vs.

¶62

The Commissioner Tambaram Municipal Corporation

¶63

Tambaram

¶64

The District Collector Chengalpattu District

¶65

The Tahsildar Tambaram

¶66

The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Tambaram Respondents in all writ petitions

¶67

Page Nos.8/24

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶70

Prayer in W.P.No.13403 of 2025:

¶71

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 under Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and out of jurisdiction and also forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.60/34 to an extent of 100 sq. ft. in Survey No.372/3, T.S.No.2, Ward – G, Block – 5, Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District without following due process of law.

¶72

Prayer in W.P.No.13406 of 2025:

¶73

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 under Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and out of jurisdiction and also forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.45 to an extent of 120 sq. ft. in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2, Ward – G, Block – 5,Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, without following due process of law.

¶74

Prayer in W.P.No.13408 of 2025:

¶75

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, particularly respondents 1 to 3 from evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.53 to an extent of 100 sq. ft. in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2, Ward – G, Block – 5, Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, without following due process of law under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007.

¶76

For petitioner Mr. G. Mohammed Aseef in all WPs

¶77

For respondents Mr. T.K. Saravanan in all WPs Addl. Government Pleader

¶78

COMMON ORDER

¶79

[made by M. SUNDAR, J.]

¶80

Captioned 'writ petitions' (hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity) were taken up together at the request of Mr. G. Mohammed Aseef, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners.

¶81

Page Nos.9/24

¶82

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

¶83

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶84

Learned counsel on record for writ petitioners submits that the captioned WPs are directly and squarely covered by common order dated 02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat.

¶85

3. Issue notice to respondents.

¶86

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all four respondents and learned State counsel also fairly submits that captioned WPs are directly and squarely covered by aforereferred common order dated 02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat.

¶87

Owing to the narrative thus far, we find that the legal landscape within which the captioned WPs should perambulate is vastly descoped and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, captioned main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board.

¶88

Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce the aforereferred common order dated 02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat. We do so and the same reads as follows:

¶89

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.04.2025 CORAM

¶90

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶91

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.Nos.11767 and 11777 of 2025

¶92

&

¶93

W.M.P Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025

¶94

Ganesan ... Petitioner W.P.No.11767 of 2025 Mohammed Saleem Thekku ... Petitioner W.P. No.11777 of 2025

¶95

vs.

¶96

The Commissioner

¶97

The Office of Commissionerate Tambaram Municipal Corporation

¶98

The District Collector Tambaram Chengalpattu District

¶99

Page Nos.10/24

¶100

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

¶101

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶102

The Tahsildar Tambaram

¶103

The Village Administrative Officer Jameen Pallavaram Tambaram

¶104

The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Tambaram ... Respondents in both WPs

¶105

(*R5 suo motu impleaded vide this order)

¶106

W.P.No. 11767 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents particularly 2^nd to 4^th respondents from evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Shop No.59 situated at Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District comprised in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2 without passing any appropriate orders under Section 7 of the Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act,2007.

¶107

W.P.No. 11777 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents particularly 2^nd to 4^th respondents from evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Shop No.58 situated at Railway Station Road, Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District comprised in Survey No.372/1, T.S.No.2 without passing any appropriate orders under Section 7 of the Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act,2007.

¶108

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef in both writ petitions

¶109

For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan in both writ petitions Additional Govt. Pleader for R1 to R5

¶110

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶111

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

¶112

In captioned 'Writ Petitions' ['WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of brevity], two notices, both signed by R1 (Commissioner, Tambaram Municipal Corporation) on 12.08.2024 and captioned 'Show-cause Notice' ['SCN' in singular and 'SCNs' in plural for the sake of brevity] have been assailed. These two notices shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

¶113

Page Nos.11/24

¶114

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

¶115

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶116

Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioners is before us. Adverting to the impugned notices, learned counsel submits that the subject matter of impugned notices is 'land comprised in Survey No.372/1, Town Survey No.2, Ward G, Block 5 in Jameen Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Corporation, Zone – 2, Chengalpattu District and the brick and mortar superstructure standing on the same' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶117

Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that R1 does not have the authority to issue SCNs as the same are under the 'Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' {hereinafter 'Tanks Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity}. Notwithstanding this position, writ petitioners have responded to the impugned notices in and vide objections dated 27.03.2025 but without considering the objections or passing appropriate orders, hectic efforts are underway to remove writ petitioners from said property branding them as 'encroachers' under Tanks Act is learned counsel's further say.

¶118

4. Issue notice to respondents.

¶119

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for all four respondents and submits that one Mr.S.P.Gandhi {President of Pallavaram 13^th Ward Kudiiruppor Podhu Nala Sangam} filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10863 of 2024 with a plea for removal of encroachment/s, the same came to be disposed of by a Hon'ble Division Bench on 22.04.2024 and the impugned notices have been issued pursuant to such orders.

¶120

This Court carefully considered the case file and the submissions.

¶121

This Court finds that the scope of the captioned WPs is very limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board.

¶122

The first point urged by learned counsel for writ petitioners is a jurisdiction point. A perusal of the impugned notices styled 'SCNs' makes it clear that the same have been issued by R1 purportedly under Section 6(3) of Tanks Act. Section 6(3) talks about publication of a notice in the prescribed manner pointing out the boundaries of the Tank. Therefore, this provision does not enure to the benefit of the respondents insofar as impugned notices i.e., SCNs are concerned.

¶123

Before we proceed further, it is necessary to respectfully advert to order dated 22.04.2024 made by another Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.10863 of 2024 about which there is allusion supra.

¶124

Page Nos.12/24

¶125

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

¶126

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶127

Paragraph 2 of this 22.04.2024 order makes it clear that Survey No.372 has been sub-divided into Survey Nos.372/1, 372/2 and 372/3 which are pond, pattai and temple respectively. To be noted, as regards impugned notices, we are concerned only with Survey No.372/1, which is a pond. This means that the ratio laid down by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam case i.e., T.K.Shanmugam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 9343 comes into play. In T.K.Shanmugam, the procedure to be followed as regards removal of encroachment under Tanks Act as laid down in T.S.Senthil Kumar case {T.S.Sentil Kumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 1347} has been reiterated. Relevant paragraphs in T.K.Shanmugam case are sub-subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph No.15, which read as follows:

¶128

'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.

¶129

(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

¶130

Page Nos.13/24

¶131

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

¶132

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶133

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.

¶134

(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.

¶135

(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.'

¶136

We respectfully follow the aforesaid principle put in place by a Hon'ble Full Bench.

¶137

As regards the aforementioned procedure, Form II under 'Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007' [hereinafter 'Tanks Rules' for the sake of brevity] is qua sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 which talks about handing over a chart and register to ' Officer ' referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 talks about 'Officer of Public Works Department', survey and demarcation of the limits of the Tanks. Therefore, notice to alleged encroacher which is simultaneous qua Form II vide T.K.Shanmugam principle has to be issued by ' Officer ', to be noted, ' Officer ' is a term of Art i.e., a defined term having been defined under Rule 2(1)(d) of Tanks Rules, which reads as follows:

¶138

Rule 2(1)(d) - “Officer” means the Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer or Overseer of the Water Resources Organization of Public Works Department, in charge of the tanks lying in his jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Acts and the Rules'

¶139

It is clear as daylight that R1 does not qualify as an ' Officer ' vide Rule 2(1)(d) of Tanks Rules. In this view of the matter, we suo motu implead Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Tambaram as R5 and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R5 also.

¶140

Before we proceed further, we make it clear that as regards Survey No.372/2, as the same is pattai, if any removal of encroachment proceedings are to be embarked upon, the same shall be under 'the

¶141

Page Nos.14/24

¶142

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

¶143

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶144

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience] by Officers specified thereat. Likewise, as regards Survey No.372/3, it has to be either under 'The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' [hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity], more particularly Section 78 thereat and / or under said 1905 Act. Either way, the alleged encroachers have to be put on notice/show-caused and opportunity has to be given.

¶145

13. As we sustain the jurisdiction point urged by learned counsel for writ petitioners, we deem it unnecessary to embark upon a legal drill qua the second point which turns on the responses not being considered.

¶146

14. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, the following order is made:

¶147

i) Impugned notices being notices dated

¶148

12.08.2024 are set aside;

¶149

ii) Impugned notices are set aside on jurisdictional point and therefore, though obvious we make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter much less about alleged encroachments one way or the other;

¶150

iii) It is made clear that if the above exercise is undertaken along with Form II, Form III shall also be issued as made clear in T.K.Shanmugam principle;

¶151

iv) We preserve all the rights and contentions of State to issue notice afresh by a competent officer i.e., competent qua Tanks Rules keeping in mind allusion and elucidation supra, more particularly the principle put in place by a Hon'ble Full Bench i.e., T.K.Shanmugam principle;

¶152

v) If the above exercise is undertaken, axiomatically we preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioners to respond to the same, to be noted, this would be vide sub-subparagraph (ii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15 of T.K.Shanmugam;

¶153

vi) If the above scenario unfurls, the authorities shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders vide sub-sub-paragraph (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15.

¶154

Page Nos.15/24

¶155

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

¶156

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶157

Captioned main WPs disposed of in the aforesaid manner. As the impugned notices have been set aside, captioned WMPs thereat have become otiose and therefore, the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶158

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶159

gpa

¶160

P.S. I: Upload forthwith

¶161

P.S.II : All concerned including Registry of Madras High Court to act forthwith on the uploaded soft copy of this proceedings as uploaded in the official website of this Court. To be noted, the soft copies uploaded in the official website of this Court are water marked, besides being QR Coded.'

¶162

As regards the captioned three main WPs, there is one additional fact in respect of W.P.No.13403 of 2025. This additional fact is, the writ petitioner (G. Ramesh, son of Gopal) has filed aforereferred suit in O.S.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallavaram, arraying R1 (Commissioner, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation) as the sole defendant, with regard to the same property which is subject matter of the impugned notices. Learned counsel very fairly made an endorsement that the writ petitioner, viz ., G.Ramesh, son of Gopal, will withdraw the aforereferred suit in O.S.No.63 of 2025 and a scanned reproduction of the endorsement is as follows:

¶163

Registry to mark a copy of this order to learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, and on being uploaded in

¶164

Page Nos.16/24

¶165

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

¶166

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶167

official website of this Court or on this order being produced before learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, shall give a closure to the suit in an appropriate manner. In other words, the suit will not proceed any further. It is further to be noted that there will be a post script in this regard which shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. In all other aspects, aforereferred common order dated 02.04.2025 made by this Bench in W.P.No.11767 and 11777 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.13326 and 13339 of 2025 thereat shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this common order and in this view of the matter, we make the following order:

¶168

i) Impugned notices in W.P. Nos.13403 and 13406 of 2025 being notices dated 12.08.2024 are set aside;

¶169

ii) Impugned notices are set aside on jurisdictional point and therefore, though obvious we make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter much less about alleged encroachments one way or the other;

¶170

iii) It is made clear that if the above exercise is undertaken along with Form II, Form III shall also be issued as made clear in T.K.Shanmugam principle;

¶171

iv) We preserve all the rights and contentions of State to issue notice afresh by a competent officer i.e., competent qua Tanks Rules keeping in mind allusion and elucidation supra , more particularly the principle put in place by a Hon'ble Full Bench i.e., T.K.Shanmugam principle;

¶172

v) If the above exercise is undertaken, axiomatically, we preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioners to respond to the same. To be noted, this would be vide sub-sub-paragraph (ii) of subparagraph (f) of paragraph 15 of T.K.Shanmugam; and

¶173

vi) If the above scenario unfurls, the authorities shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders vide sub-sub-paragraph (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15 of T.K. Shanmugam .

¶174

Page Nos.17/24

¶175

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

¶176

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶177

Captioned three main WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petitions thereat are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶178

cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No

¶179

P.S. I Upload forthwith.

¶180

P.S.II All concerned, including Registry of Madras High Court, to act forthwith on the uploaded soft copy of this proceedings as uploaded in the official website of this Court. To be noted, the soft copies uploaded in the official website of this Court are water marked, besides being QR Coded.

¶181

P.S.III Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, to give a closure to O.S.No.63 of 2025 on this order being brought to the notice of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.

¶182

P.S.IV Though disposed of, list under caption 'FOR COMPLIANCE' of the withdrawal of suit on 23.04.2025.'

¶183

Reverting to the case on hand, learned Senior Counsel for

¶184

writ petitioner submits that the revenue classification of S.No.372/1 is Oor Natham, meaning Village Natham and it is not a water body. In support of this contention, photocopy of ‘A’ register which has been filed as part of the typed set of papers was pressed into service and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶185

Page Nos.18/24

¶186

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

¶187

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶188

Page Nos.19/24

¶189

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

¶190

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶191

Learned Senior Counsel for writ petitioner submits that a communication dated 21.05.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1654/2024/M1 from R5 to R2 which talks about Survey Nos.372/1, 372/2 and 372/3 being encroached upon, has been called in question in the captioned WP as the writ petitioners have been put under pain of dispossession and demolition by the official respondents.

¶192

Issue notice to official respondents.

¶193

Mr. P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice

¶194

for RR 1 and 2 and Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for RR 3 to 6.

¶195

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel, submits that survey has been conducted and action under the Tanks Act is in the anvil.

¶196

In response to the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, submits, on instructions, that writ petitioners have not been put on notice about the survey, survey was not

¶197

Page Nos.20/24

¶198

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

¶199

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶200

conducted in their presence and in any event, as S.No.372/1 is classified as Oor Natham, the Tanks Act will not be attracted.

¶201

If action under the Tanks Act is resorted to, the writ petitioners have to be put on notice, given an opportunity to respond and orders will have to be made on the same. This is vide the mechanism put in place by a Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 9343 . To be noted, since the relevant portion of T.K. Shanmugam case has already been extracted in paragraph 4 supra , to avoid prolixity, the same is not extracted here.

¶202

Learned State counsel submits that the above procedure will be strictly adhered to. We express no opinion on whether the Tanks Act will be attracted. We leave open the question for the writ petitioners to respond if they are visited with notices under the Tanks Act. If this point is raised by the petitioners, the same has to be considered and orders will have to be made in accordance with T.K.Shanmugam principle. Orders so made have to be duly served on each of the writ petitioners under due acknowledgment.

¶203

Page Nos.21/24

¶204

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

¶205

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶206

If the final orders are in favour of the writ petitioners, that would be curtains on the matter. If it happens to the contrary, the same shall be kept in abeyance for a fortnight from the date of service of the orders on each of the writ petitioners so as to provide a window to each of the writ petitioners to assail the orders, if so advised and so desired.

¶207

As regards R7 (private respondent), a PIL petitioner is only an informant. However, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of R7 remain preserved and this order does not touch upon the rights and contentions of R7 in any manner and therefore, we dispense with notice to R7. In this view of the matter, captioned main WP was taken up with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioners and learned State counsel.

¶208

Captioned WP stands disposed of recording the stated position of learned State counsel with the aforementioned observations and directives. We make it clear that coercive action, if any and if that

¶209

Page Nos.22/24

¶210

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

¶211

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶212

be so, will be subject to and depending on orders to be made in the aforesaid manner with a rider, as stated above, that the same shall be kept in abeyance in the event of the same being adverse to the writ petitioners and since this douses the anxiety of the writ petitioners with regard to being under pain of dispossession/demolition, captioned WMPs thereat stand disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶213

(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 10.06.2025

¶214

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No cad

¶215

Page Nos.23/24

¶216

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

¶217

W.P.No.18524 of 2025

¶218

M.SUNDAR, J. and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.