AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—The writ petition has been filed by the association named as Residents Welfare Association which is a registered association. The petition has been filed on the ground that the member of the association have encroached into the river poramboke in survey No. B/5 situated in Pandian Street, Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District and such an action has to be regularized by issuance of Patta.
The only contention raised by the association is that they are well wishers of the entire body of members and that encroachment which has been made has got to be regularized as per the G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000. It is also contended that the members of the association have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for a quite long time and therefore they will come under the parameters as found in G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000. The name list of 20 members of the association have been given in the writ petition. The petitioner association would also contend that they are eligible under the G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000.
The Government has filed a detailed counter. The learned Government Advocate specifically argued and contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the writ petition filed by the association seeking for issuance of patta for individuals which according to him will vary according to their requirements and according to their eligibility. Apart from this, even the application of the said G.O would be made to anyone only if the lands are not required by the Government for their usage. Only then such an application would be considered as per G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department, dated 27.03.2000 and above all these things, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has filed a detailed counter. In the counter, he has categorically stated that as the lands are classified as river poramboke and required for the Government usage, the lands could not be regularized and have to be made free from encroachments and that being so as per the classification of the lands which is a river poramboke no encroachments would bee allowed and hence the writ petition is legally not sustainable and maintainable.
Heard both parties. At the outset, the writ petition filed by the association consisting of 20 members who have encroached into the river poramboke and seeking for patta as per G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000, the association cannot plead for the grant of issuance of patta in respect of various individuals as their eligibility criteria for every individual and the allotment may differ totally and whereas the G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000 would be applied only after taking into consideration of every individual aspect. Therefore this writ petition filed by the association seeking for implementation of G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000 is legally not sustainable or maintainable.
Even otherwise, taking into consideration the merits of the case also on a reading of the G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000 would only indicate that a committee was constituted to go into the question of regularization of the poramboke land by a committee provided only if such land is not required for the purpose which is meant for. But in this case the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department who is the competent authority who maintains the water body level and irrigation has categorically stated that this is a rive poramboke and the said lands are required for the Government usage and hence the lands could not be regularized and it has to be removed from the encroachments. That being so, the association cannot plead for implementation of G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000 or seeking the committee to go into the question whether they are eligible as stated supra since the association cannot bring the cause for the individuals even if any individual is entitled, it will be only for the particular individual to seek the remedy in accordance with law. This Writ petition at this point of time is legally not sustainable or maintainable and also even on merits the association has not made out any case as the Government has specifically stated that they need the property and encroachment has to be removed.
It is seen from the prayer in the main writ petition that the lands are situated in survey No. B/5 in Pandian Street, Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District. But as pointed out by the Government Advocate, the address given by the members of the association are located in different places and different areas and therefore the association cannot plead for the regularization of encroachment in particular place and include the members residing in another place. In any view of the matter, in as much as the area is stated to be a river poramboke there is no justification for the claim made by the association.
In this connection, I am guided by the two Division Bench judgments of this Hon''ble Court. The first judgment reported in L. Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , in which the Hon''ble then Chief Justice Markandey Katju (as he then was) and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla have categorically held that when the land in question has been classified as ''Odai Poromboke'' in the revenue records then there should be specific steps taken to make an overall study of all such encroachments in respect of lands which have been classified as lands meant for the purpose of storage of water(i.e., ponds, tanks, lakes, etc.) and such a step required to be taken by the State in order to improve the water storage facility prevailing in the State since in many parts of Tamil Nadu people are suffering from an acute shortage of water.
The Division Bench further held that it is imperative that such natural resources providing for water storage facilities are maintained by the State Government by taking all possible steps both by taking preventive measures as well as by removal of unlawful encroachments. Finally after relying upon the various judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench has held as follows:
Therefore, we direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary legal steps to remove the alleged encroachments made by the respondents 6 to 12 as well as the petitioner over Odai Poramboke in Iyan Punji Survey No. 100/1 at No. 247, Tatchur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District measuring 5 acres and 70 cents. Inasmuch as this writ petition has come before us by way of a public interest litigation, we take this opportunity to direct the State Government to identify all such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever illegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the relevant provisions of law for restoring such natural water storage resources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its original position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water shortage is ameliorated.
The latest judgment is reported in 2008 1 MLJ 417 (Anti Corruption Movement, rep. by its General Secretary, Saligramam, Chennai v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai and Ors.), in which the Hon''ble then Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah(as he then was) and Justice P. Jothimani have held as follows:
Having considered the difficulties expressed by the learned Government Pleader in carrying out the process of removal of encroachments, we pass the following order:
(i) The Secretaries, Public Works Department, in consultation with the respective District Collectors, are directed to decide the programme of evicting the encroachments in the water bodies falling in Categories ''A'' and ''B'' referred to above, by the end of November 2007 and complete the process of removal of such encroachments by the end of May 2008.
(ii) The State Government is at liberty to consider, in appropriate cases, grant of alternative sites for re-location of the encroachets, as per their policy decision. All the authorities concerned like the local authorities as well as the police officials, will extend their full cooperation to the the Public Works Development/District Collectors for effectively implementing the policy decision of the Government of removal of encroachments from water bodies.
(iii) No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in connection with the removal of the encroachments in the water bodies and every person, who has put up any construction in such water bodies and who is aggrieved by the action taken by the authorities of removal of such encroachment from the water bodies, is at liberty to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and all such applications shall be placed before the First Bench of this Court.
(iv) The State Government is directed to identify and take stern action against the land grabbers who have sold the lands in the water bodies to innocent purchasers, which would act as a deterrant. the survey numbers of the lands in various water bodies in question are directed to be notified and the Registration Department concerned is directed not to register any transaction in respect of such lands falling under the water bodies.
(v) In respect of the Porur tank, the respondents have already removed all the encroachments and the said water body is free of any encroachment. In case any encroachment is made on the water body in future, it will be open for the authorities to remove such encroachment even without, issuing any notice to such encroachers.
(vi) It is also made clear that even after the encroachments from the water bodies are removed as per the policy decision of the State Government, the respective District Collectors shall keep a close watch over such water bodies and in case of any fresh encroachment thereon, the District Collectors are at liberty to remove the same with the help of police, wherever necessary, without any notice, to such encroachers.
The endeavor of the Division Benches judgments is categorically to say that the District Collector will take necessary steps for removal of the encroachments in respect of tanks, ponds, Odai and continued to be maintained as the same. Even if any subsequent encroachments are made, the District Collectors are at liberty to take necessary steps to remove all such encroachments.
When that being the case, all the decision reported by this Hon''ble Court are to be respectfully carried out by the authorities. The arguments of the petitioner association claiming that the encroachments is river poramboke has to be regularized is legally not sustainable. Therefore following the Division Bench Judgments of this Hon''ble Court, the Association is not entitled to the relief in the writ petition.
In any view of the matter, as stated supra, since the Government is requiring the land, the question of implementation of G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000 will not arise. In so far as the petitioner association is concerned if at all the individuals are entitled, they have to prove the same before the authority concerned in accordance with law and this petition filed by the association calling upon them to implement G.O. Permanent No. 166, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000 is legally not sustainable. Hence the petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed