Rosiammal Vs the Assistant Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Rosiammal Vs the Assistant Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The 11 impugned orders dated 06.01.2025 were set aside solely for non-consideration of the two Revenue reports; R2 directed to decide on the reports on or before 04.02.2025 and communicate the decision to R1; R1 to either conclude or pass fresh orders on or before 04.03.2025; merits of the objections and the patta question left open for de novo consideration; interim order dated 10.01.2025 declared otiose; WMPs closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the eleven impugned orders dated 06.01.2025 passed by R1 (Assistant Engineer, WRD) are sustainable when R1 failed to consider the two Revenue reports (Tahsildar, May 2024; RDO, September 2024) specifically adverted to in the writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024, contrary to the procedure mandated by the Hon'ble Full Bench in T.K.Shanmugam (2015 (5) LW 397) that objections be considered and appropriate orders passed. +1 more

Court's answer

The eleven impugned orders all dated 06.01.2025 bearing reference foj vz; nfh/vz;/34-cbgh-muf;nfhzk;-2024 are set aside solely on the ground that the two Revenue reports (R4/Tahsildar, May 2024; R3/RDO, September 2024), though specifically alluded to in the writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024, were not considered — this being contrary to the T.K.Shanmugam Full Bench principle.

Ratio / Principle

R2 (District Collector) is directed to take a decision on the two Revenue reports of R4 and R3 as expeditiously as its business permits, in any event within a fortnight, i.e., on or before 04.02.2025.

Key takeaways

R2's report/decision shall be communicated to R1 forthwith; thereupon R1, depending on that report/decision, shall either draw curtains or take up the matter and pass orders afresh, in any event within six weeks, i.e., on or before 04.03.2025.ratio¶146
No view or opinion has been expressed on the merits of the writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024 or on the Revenue reports; R2 and R1 shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order (de novo exercise).obiter¶150

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench: M.Sundar & K.Rajasekar, JJ.; common order made by M.SUNDAR, J.), 21.01.2025 — Eleven writ petitions under Article 226 challenging eleven orders dated 06.01.2025 bearing reference foj vz; nfh/vz;/34-cbgh-muf;nfhzk;-2024 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department (second round; the first round ended in a common order dated 09.12.2024 treating the 15.11.2024 notices as Show Cause Notices and requiring objections by 23.12.2024 and R1 orders by 06.01.2025) — Held: the impugned orders were set aside solely because the two Revenue reports (Tahsildar, May 2024; Revenue Divisional Officer, September 2024, Na.Ka.Aa.1/2014/2024), which record sub-divisions and recommend issue of patta and which were specifically adverted to in the writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024, were not considered — this being contrary to the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 (5) LW 397 (objections to be considered and appropriate orders passed) — District Collector directed to decide on the two reports on or before 04.02.2025 and communicate the decision to R1; R1 to either conclude the matter or pass fresh orders on or before 04.03.2025 — no view expressed on the merits of the objections or the reports; entitlement to patta over the Sarkar Poramboke left open, the question being under active consideration of the District Collector — interim order dated 10.01.2025 declared otiose; WMPs closed; no order as to costs. (Baskar's case, W.P.No.35616 of 2024, order dated 26.11.2024, distinguished; T.S.Senthil Kumar, 2010 (3) MLJ 771, on vires of the Tanks Act, referred to as settled.)

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

and

W.M.P.No.914,1110,1115,1116,1119,1122,1016,1021,1031,1032 and

1040 of 2025

Rosiammal Petitioner in WP No.744 of 2025 Valliamma Petitioner in WP No.924 of 2025 S. Gowri Petitioner in WP No.926 of 2025 Chinnammal Petitioner in WP No.928 of 2025 Sasikala Petitioner in WP No.930 of 2025 Subbamma Petitioner in WP No.935 of 2025 Dhanalakshmi Petitioner in WP No.864 of 2025 Vasanthi Petitioner in WP No.857 of 2025 Saritha Petitioner in WP No.847 of 2025

Kanchana

Loganathan Petitioners in WP No.842 of 2025

Prema Petitioner in WP No.867 of 2025

vs.

The Assistant Engineer Water Resources Department Irrigation Division Arakkonam 631 005 Ranipet District

The District Collector Ranipet District Ranipet

Page Nos.1/22

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

3.

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

The Revenue Divisional Officer Arakkonam Revenue Divisional Office Arakkonam Ranipet District

The Tahsildar Arakkonam Taluk Ranipet District Respondents in all WPs

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records

relating to the impugned order in Letter No.File No.34/A3/Arakkonam/2024/dated 06.01.2025 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to regularise the petitioners' occupation over the Sarkar Poramboke measuring 80 sq. m. comprised in T.S.No.43 in Ward-C, Block-4, Door No.3, Galivarikandigai I Street, Arakkonam Town as per G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 19.01.2023 issued by the Government and the recommendation made by the third respondent in

Na.Ka.Aa1/2014/2024 dated ... 09.2024 based on the report of the fourth respondent dated 17.05.2024.

For petitioners in Mr. T.M. Mano all WPs for Mr. P. Krishnan For respondents in Mr. V. Ravi all WPs Special Government Pleader

Page Nos.2/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

This common order will now govern the captioned 11 main writ petitions (hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity) and the captioned 11 WMPs thereat.

This is the second round of litigation in this Court. The earlier round of litigation in this Court was vide W.P. Nos.37465 of 2024 etc. batch (11 WPs) which came to be disposed of by a common order dated 09.12.2024 made by this Court which reads as follows:

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.12.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.P.Nos.37465, 37468, 37470, 37472, 37477, 37478, 37480, 37482,

37483, 37485 & 37486 of 2024

and

W.M.P.No. 40495 of 2024 in W.P. No.37465 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40498 of 2024 in W.P. No.37468 of 2024

W.M.P.No. 40499 of 2024 in W.P. No.37470 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40500 of 2024 in W.P. No.37472 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40506 of 2024 in W.P. No.37477 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40508 of 2024 in W.P. No.37478 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40509 of 2024 in W.P. No.37480 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40510 of 2024 in W.P. No.37482 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40511 of 2024 in W.P. No.37483 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40512 of 2024 in W.P. No.37485 of 2024 W.M.P.No. 40513 of 2024 in W.P. No.37486 of 2024

Page Nos.3/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Rosiammal		... Petitioner in W.P. No.37465 of 2024
Subbamma		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37468 of 2024
Chinnammal		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37470 of 2024
Vasanthi		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37472 of 2024
Prema		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37477 of 2024
1.Kanchana 2.Loganathan		.. Petitioners in W.P. No.37478 of 2024
Sasikala		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37480 of 2024
S.Gowri		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37482 of 2024
Valliamma		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37483 of 2024
Dhanalakshmi		.. Petitioner in W.P. No. 37485 of 2024
Saritha		.. Petitioner in W.P. No.37486 of 2024
	vs.
1.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.
2.The Commissioner, Arakkonam Municipality, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Arakkonam Taluk Arakkonam, Ranipet District.		... Respondents in all WPs

Page Nos.4/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 06.07.2022 and 15.11.2024 in Letter No. File No.34/A.E/Arakkonam/2024 issued by the 1^st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners' occupation over the sarkar poramboke as per the Circular vide Letter No.F3/11339/2018 dated 07.12.2020 issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Mano for Mr.P.Krishnan in all WPs For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 in all WPs Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for R2 in all WPs

COMMON ORDER

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

This common order will govern the captioned 11 'Writ Petitions' (hereinafter 'WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity) and 11 captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petitions' (hereinafter 'WMPs' in plural and 'WMP' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity) thereat.

In all the 11 WPs, two sets of notices, one set dated 06.07.2022 and another set dated 15.11.2024 bearing reference foj vz;/nfh/vz;/34-c/bgh/-muf;nfhzk;-2024 both issued by R1 (The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Arakkonam, Ranipet District) have been called in question. These notices shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity. However, wherever it becomes necessary, '06.07.2022 notices' shall be referred to as 'I impugned notices' and '15.11.2024 notices' shall be referred to as 'II impugned notices'.

Impugned notices have been issued under 'The Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007' (hereinafter 'Tanks Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) and they pertain to 'Survey Nos.43 and 69 in Arakkonam Town, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District' (hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

Page Nos.5/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

The writ petitioners are noticees qua impugned notices.

Mr.T.M.Mano, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioners submits that said lands may not qualify as Tank within the meaning of Tanks Act in its entirety. It is his specific say that some parts of the said lands (according to A Register i.e., revenue records) have been classified as ghl;il and fsk; viz., pathway and threshing floor respectively, however, substantial parts of the lands have also been classified as fhy;tha; (channel).

Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioners sent a response to the I impugned notices in 2023 itself, no orders were passed, there was a lull and the II impugned notices have now been issued.

Issue notice to respondents.

Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for R1 and R3 and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R2.

Learned State counsel submits that impugned notices have been issued as said lands are channel and therefore are 'Tank' within the meaning of Tanks Act, however there is no disputation or disagreement that when the writ petitioners responded to I impugned notices in 2023, no orders have been passed.

Considering the limited legal perimeter within which the captioned WPs will have to perambulate, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board itself.

Before we proceed further, we make it clear that the writ petitioners do not have title or patta to said lands and whether it is pattai, kalam or kalvai, they can be treated as encroachers/unauthorised occupants for the purposes of impugned notices but we hasten to add that they may have some answer to the II impugned notices as post I impugned notices, as there have been some revenue proceedings and our attention has been drawn to post revenue proceedings more particularly proceedings bearing reference Na.Ka.Aa.1/230/2021 made in May of 2024 by R3 and proceedings said to have been made by jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in September of 2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.Aa.1/2014/2024. Therefore, in the light of T.K.Shanmugam {T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu} principle i.e., T.K.Shanmugam (FB) reported in 2015 (5) LW 397 a nd more particularly sub paragraph (f) of paragraph 15 and sub subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) thereat, it is only imperative that the noticees/writ petitioners are given an opportunity to respond to II

Page Nos.6/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

impugned notices raising all points and it is only apposite and appropriate that R1 passes an order considering the response. In other words, going by T.K.Shanmugam (FB) principle, the noticees have to be show caused and given an opportunity.

Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to record that impugned notices have been issued to many noticees and one such noticee viz., Thiru.Baskar filed W.P.No.35616 of 2024 and the same came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench on 26.11.2024. A careful perusal of this 26.11.2024 order brings to light that Baskar's case order may not be of aid either to the writ petitioners or to the State in the captioned matters for two reasons. One reason is in Baskar's case, the writ petitioner has given an undertaking to the Court saying that the writ petitioner will vacate within the time frame captured therein. The second reason is in Baskar's case, when Thiru.Baskar responded to the I impugned notice vide objections dated 20.07.2022, orders were passed in the same on 06.09.2022 and it is also seen that Thiru.Baskar had also filed an appeal to jurisdictional District Revenue Officer. In the cases on hand, as already alluded to supra and as captured supra, State has not passed any orders on the objections of the writ petitioners qua I impugned notices.

This Court now reverts to the cases on hand. As regards the cases on hand, elaborating on T.K.Shanmugam (FB) , we deem it appropriate to write that the vires of the Tanks Act was assailed in T.S.Senthil Kumar's case [T.S.Senthil Kumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu] reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 771 and a Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 10.02.2010 upheld the vires of the Tanks Act. This T.S.Senthil Kumar's case was reiterated in T.K.Shanmugam by the Hon'ble Full Bench reported in 2015 (5) LW 397 and while reiterating the Division Bench order in T.S.Senthil Kumar , Hon'ble Full Bench put in a caveat with regard to the procedure to be followed when proceedings are initiated under the Tanks Act and an adumbration of said proceedings is found in sub sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 15 of T.K.Shanmugam (FB) which reads as follows:

'15(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.

Page Nos.7/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

(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.'

This Court has repeatedly held that the dictum/ratio or in other words the procedure laid down by way of a principle by a Hon'ble Full Bench has to be followed. It is only appropriate that alleged encroachers are show caused before coercive action is taken.

There is no disputation about the obtaining legal position qua T.S.Senthil Kumar (DB) or T.K.Shanmugam (FB).

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

16.1 The eleven II impugned notices all dated 15.11.2024 issued by R1 shall now be treated as Show Cause Notices (SCNs);

16.2 There is no disputation or contestation that the writ petitioners have received the II impugned notices. Therefore, the noticees/writ petitioners shall send their objections within a fortnight from today i.e., by 23.12.2024;

16.3 Thereafter, R1 shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of Tanks Act within another fortnight therefrom i.e., by 06.01.2025;

16.4 If the orders made by R1 are in favour of the writ petitioners, that may well be the end of the road qua captioned matters. If that not be so, the proceedings qua removal of encroachments shall be commenced and concluded as expeditiously as the business of the respondents would permit preferably within another fortnight therefrom i.e., by 20.01.2025;

16.5 For the abovesaid legal drill qua T.K.Shanmugam (FB) principle all questions i.e., all contentions of both sides are left open.

Page Nos.8/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner with aforereferred observations and directives. Consequently, captioned WMPs thereat are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.'

Post aforementioned common order dated 09.12.2024, R1 (Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division) has passed 11 orders, all dated 06.01.2025 and all bearing reference

foj vz; nfh/vz;/34-cbgh-muf;nfhzk;-2024 (hereinafter collectively 'impugned orders' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

Mr. T.M. Mano, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Krishnan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners, adverting to the aforementioned earlier order of this Court, submits that the I impugned notices, i.e., 06.07.2022 notices are under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905) ( for brevity 'said 1905 Act'), response has been sent and the same is pending. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that as regards II impugned notices, viz. , 15.11.2024 notices, impugned orders have been made by

Page Nos.9/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

R1 post 09.12.2024 order (reproduced supra ) by adverting to the 09.12.2024 order. Learned counsel submits that aforementioned 09.12.2024 order specifically refers to the procedure laid down by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in T.K. Shanmugam case (T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) reported in 2015 (5) LW 397 . To be noted, paragraph 13 of order dated 09.12.2024 captures the procedure. Adverting to paragraph 13, learned counsel submits that two reports, one made by R4 (Tahsildar) in May of 2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.Aa.1/203/2021 and another made in September of 2024 by R3 (Revenue Divisional Officer) bearing reference Na.Ka.Aa.1/2014/2024, have been referred to and relied on by the writ petitioners in their objections dated 23.12.2024 but the reports have not even been adverted to in the impugned orders. Learned counsel went on to submit that the objections have not even been noticed by R1 in making the impugned orders.

5. Issue notice to respondents.

Page Nos.10/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts

notice for all the respondents and submits that there is a reference to the 23.12.2024 objections of the writ petitioners in the impugned orders.

Considering the limited scope of the captioned main WPs,

main WPs were taken up and heard out in the Admission Board with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides.

Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to say

that the two reports have been noticed and the details of the two reports alluded to supra , have been captured by us in paragraph 11 of our aforementioned 09.12.2024 common order and these two reports, as placed before us, are as follows:

Page Nos.11/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Report of Tahsildar:

Page Nos.12/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Page Nos.13/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer:

Page Nos.14/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Page Nos.15/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Page Nos.16/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

Page Nos.17/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

A careful perusal of the aforementioned two reports brings

to light that R4, in the report made in May 2024 and R3, in the report made in September 2024, have made sub-divisions and inter alia recommended issue of patta. This Court is informed that R2 (District Collector) is now in seizin of the matter. This means that the question as to whether the writ petitioners are entitled to patta is one which is under active consideration of R2 (District Collector). This has been adverted to by the writ petitioners in their objections dated 23.12.2024 and a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in T.K.Shanmugam's case, vide sub sub-paragraph (iii) of subparagraph (f) of paragraph 15, has made it clear that the authority shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders. This means that R1 should have considered the two reports of R4 and R3 adverted to in the writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024 but the same has not been done.

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

Page Nos.18/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

(i) Impugned orders being 11 orders all dated 06.01.2025 and all bearing reference foj vz; nfh/vz;/34-cbgh-muf;nfhzk;-2024 are set aside solely on the ground that the two Revenue reports by R4 and R3 made in May of 2024 and in September of 2024 respectively have not been considered though the same have been specifically alluded to in writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024 and this is contrary to the T.K. Shanmugam principle laid down by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court;

(ii) R2 (District Collector) shall now take a decision on the two Revenue reports of R4 and R3 being reports made in May of 2024 and in September of 2024 respectively (to be noted, the reports, as placed before us, have been scanned and reproduced in paragraph 8, supra ) as expeditiously as the business of R2 would permit but in any event within a fortnight from today, i.e., on or before 04.02.2025;

(iii) Report/decision of R2 shall be communicated by R2 to R1 forthwith. Thereafter, R1, depending on the report/decision of R2, shall either draw curtains or take up the matter and pass orders afresh as expeditiously as the business of R1 would permit but in any event within six weeks from today, i.e., on or before 04.03.2025; and

Page Nos.19/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

(iv) Though obvious, for the sake of abundant specificity, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the objections of the writ petitioners dated 23.12.2024 or for that matter, on the reports of the Revenue authorities and therefore, R2 (District Collector) and R1 (Assistant Engineer, WRO, Irrigation Division), shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order.

Captioned 11 WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the aforementioned observations and directives. As we make it clear that further action (if any and if that be so) will be subject to the aforementioned de novo exercise, the interim order granted on 10.01.2025 becomes otiose and captioned WMPs are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 21.01.2025

cad Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

Page Nos.20/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

To

The Assistant Engineer Water Resources Department Irrigation Division Arakkonam 631 005 Ranipet District

The District Collector Ranipet District Ranipet

The Revenue Divisional Officer Arakkonam Revenue Divisional Office Arakkonam Ranipet District

The Tahsildar Arakkonam Taluk Ranipet District

Page Nos.21/22

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

W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935,842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

M.SUNDAR, J.

and

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cad

Common order in W.P. Nos.744,924,926,928,930,935, 842,847,857,864 & 867 of 2025

21.01.2025

Page Nos.22/22

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Eleven orders all dated 06.01.2025, all bearing reference foj vz; nfh/vz;/34-cbgh-muf;nfhzk;-2024, passed by R1 (Assistant Engineer, WRD) pursuant to the 09.12.2024 common order, disposing of the writ petitioners' objections to the 15.11.2024 notices¶27
Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Arakkonam, Ranipet District (first respondent) · 06.01.2025
Prior proceeding
First round of litigation: batch of 11 writ petitions (W.P. Nos.37465, 37468, 37470, 37472, 37477, 37478, 37480, 37482, 37483, 37485 & 37486 of 2024) disposed of by common order dated 09.12.2024 of the same Bench, which treated the 15.11.2024 notices as Show Cause Notices, required objections by 23.12.2024 and R1 orders by 06.01.2025, leaving all questions open¶36
Prior proceeding
Two sets of eviction notices were issued by R1 — one set dated 06.07.2022 ('I impugned notices') and another set dated 15.11.2024 ('II impugned notices') — pertaining to Survey Nos.43 and 69 in Arakkonam Town; the writ petitioners are noticees. The earlier order recorded issuance under the Tanks Act; learned counsel submitted the 06.07.2022 notices are under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905¶60
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioners sent a response to the I impugned notices in 2023, but no orders were passed thereon; the II impugned notices followed¶67
Prior proceeding
Report of the Tahsildar (R4) made in May 2024 (reference printed as Na.Ka.Aa.1/203/2021 in the impugned-orders discussion; Na.Ka.Aa.1/230/2021 in the 09.12.2024 order) recording sub-division and recommending issue of patta¶104
Prior proceeding
Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer (R3) made in September 2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.Aa.1/2014/2024, likewise making sub-divisions and recommending issue of patta¶104
Prior proceeding
Writ petitioners' objections dated 23.12.2024 referred to and relied on both Revenue reports, but the reports were not adverted to in the impugned orders dated 06.01.2025¶104
Prior proceeding
Related matter: noticee Thiru.Baskar filed W.P.No.35616 of 2024, disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench on 26.11.2024; that order was found not to be of aid to either side (Baskar had undertaken to vacate, and his objections to the I impugned notices were answered on 06.09.2022 with an appeal to the DRO)¶77
Prior proceeding
An interim order had been granted on 10.01.2025 in the captioned matters; upon this disposal it was declared otiose and the WMPs closed¶151