Disposed¶53

Dhanalakshmi v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WP/32449/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odai poramboke land encroachment; water body survey; road laying objected; mandamus; representation dated 07.07.2025; Vellore District; Katpadi Taluk; Eranthangal Village S.No.323; Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007; natural justice before eviction; T.K.Shanmugam Full Bench directions (2015 (5) LW 397); T.S.Senthil Kumar (2010) 3 MLJ 771; notice dispensed to private respondents; timelines 27.10.2025 and 22.12.2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by recording the State counsel's submission that survey of the water body will be completed on or before 27.10.2025 and that any action under the Tanks Act or other appropriate applicable statute will be commenced on or before 22.12.2025, subject to the T.K.Shanmugam natural-justice procedure; no order as to costs. ¶53

Dhanalakshmi Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent to forbear respondents 3 and 4 or anyone from laying road in the 'odai poramboke' land comprised in S.No.323, Eranthangal Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.07.2025. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by recording learned State counsel's stated position that the survey of the water body will be done within eight weeks, on or before 27.10.2025, and that any action under the Tanks Act or any other appropriate applicable statute will commence as expeditiously as possible but in any event within eight weeks therefrom, on or before 22.12.2025.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Any action against the private respondents/alleged encroachers or any other encroacher must be preceded by putting them on notice/show cause and giving them an opportunity, with action being subject to and dependent on the cause shown/response of the noticee(s), in adherence to the T.K.Shanmugam natural-justice procedure.

¶48

Key takeaways

All the rights and contentions of the private respondents (respondents 3 and 4) and/or any other noticee(s) stand preserved for responding suitably when show-caused or served with notices under the Tanks Act.ratio¶48
The Court has not expressed any view or opinion, one way or the other, regarding the alleged encroachment qua the said water body.obiter¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Sundar and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ.; order by M. Sundar, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by Dhanalakshmi seeking a mandamus to the District Collector, Vellore, to forbear respondents 3 and 4 or anyone from laying road in 'odai poramboke' land in S.No.323, Eranthangal Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, and to consider her representation dated 07.07.2025. The Court recorded the learned Additional Government Pleader's submission that a survey of the water body would be conducted after putting all concerned on notice, on or before 27.10.2025, and that any action for removal of encroachment (if found) under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007) or other applicable statute would be commenced on or before 22.12.2025. The Court clarified that due process under the Tanks Act necessarily means adherence to the natural-justice procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 (5) LW 397 — notice to the alleged encroacher, opportunity to object within two weeks, and considered orders — which reiterates the principle in T.S.Senthil Kumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 3 MLJ 771. The rights and contentions of the private respondents and/or any other noticee(s) were expressly preserved, notice to them was dispensed with on consent, and the Court expressed no view on whether the alleged encroachment exists.

¶1

W.P.No.32449 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

W.P. No.32449 of 2025

¶9

Dhanalakshmi Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

The District Collector Vellore District

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer Katpadi Taluk Vellore District

¶13

Viswanathan

¶14

Kannagi Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to forbear the respondents 3 and 4 or anyone from laying road in “odai poramboke' land comprised in S.No.323, Eranthangal Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.07.2025.

¶16

For petitioner Mr. C Harish For RR 1 & 2 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Addl. Govt. Pleader For RR 3 & 4 Notice dispensed with

¶17

Page No.1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.32449 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶22

Subject matter of captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] is alleged encroachment made in odai poramboke land in 'S.No.323, Eranthangal Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District' [hereinafter 'said water body' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶23

Request for removal of aforereferred alleged encroachment by writ petitioner by way of a representation dated 07.07.2025 to official respondents has not yielded results and that has necessitated captioned WP, is the submission of Mr. C. Harish, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner.

¶24

Issue notice to official respondents (respondents 1 and 2).

¶25

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶26

accepts notice for official respondents (respondents 1 and 2). Learned State counsel submits that survey of said water body will be done after putting all concerned on notice and in their presence, within a period of eight weeks from today, i.e., on or before 27.10.2025, and

¶27

Page No.2/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.32449 of 2025

¶30

depending on the outcome of the survey, action for removal of encroachment (if found) will be commenced vide the provisions of '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 brevity] or any other appropriate applicable statute, as expeditiously as the business of official respondents would permit but in any event within a period of eight weeks therefrom, i.e. , on or before 22.12.2025. This submission is recorded.

¶31

Though obvious, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that due process of law vide Tanks Act necessarily means adherence to procedure put in place by an Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court vide T.K.Shanmugam case [T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of

¶32

Tamil Nadu] reported in 2015 (5) LW 397 . As regards T.K.Shanmugam principle, relevant paragraphs are sub subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of subparagraph (f) of paragraph 15 and the same read as follows:

¶33

'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

¶34

Page No.3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.32449 of 2025

¶37

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.

¶38

(a) ..... (b) ..... (c) ..... (d) ...... (e) .....

¶39

(f) We uphold the Act, while we provide for observance of principles of natural justice within the Act itself, as under.

¶40

(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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.'

¶43

To be noted, T.K.Shanmugam reiterates T.S.Senthil Kumar principle

¶44

Page No.4/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.32449 of 2025

¶47

[T.S.Senthil Kumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 771] rendered by an Hon'ble Coordinate co-equal Division Bench.

¶48

The above means that private respondents (respondents 3 and 4) who are alleged encroachers and / or any other encroacher/s, will be put on notice/show caused, given an opportunity and action will be subject to and depending on cause shown / response of noticee/s. Therefore, captioned WP is taken up with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel, dispensing with notice to private respondents (respondents 3 and4). Though obvious, it is made clear that this order does not touch upon the rights of private respondents and / or any other noticee/s under the Tanks Act. This means that all the rights and contentions of private respondents (respondents 3 and 4) and/or any other noticee/s stand preserved for responding suitably when show caused / visited with notices. Though obvious, for the sake of specificity, it is clarified that this Court, in instant order, has not expressed any view or opinion, one way or the other, regarding alleged encroachment qua said water body.

¶49

Page No.5/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.32449 of 2025

¶52

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is

¶53

disposed of in the aforesaid manner, recording the stated position of learned State counsel that survey will be done within a period of eight weeks from today, i.e., on or before 27.10.2025 and action if any, under the Tanks Act or any other appropriate applicable statute will be commenced as expeditiously as the business of official respondents would permit but in any event within a period of eight weeks therefrom

¶54