Using Land Earmarked As Waterbody For Other Purposes Detrimental To Society: Madras High Court Upholds Eviction Notices

Time and again, this court, held that unchecked encroachment of waterbodies has vastly reduced the area which was reserved in the interest of public and ecological balance. It is the bounden-duty of the officials of the Revenue Department and the Public Works Department to preserve and protect government lands which have been reserved for specific purposes. Indisputably, such encroachments could not have taken place without the knowledge of the authorities.

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala were disposing petitions challenging the notices issued in Form III under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007.

The petitioners had challenged the notices on the ground that they were not given an opportunity to provide an explanation. It was also submitted that notice in Form III was issued without issuing notice in Form II and that the respondents ought to have called for explanation before issuing the notice.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that notices under Form III were given in accordance with law. It was submitted that the Rules do not contemplate an opportunity of a hearing. The boundaries of the tanks were demarcated after survey and published on the notice board of the Public Works Department and based on the same, notice in Form III was issued.

The court noted that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in T.S.Senthil Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others which analysed the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007 and Rules, principles of natural justice has to be followed and the party receiving the notice had to be given liberty to raise his objections.

The court noted that the petitioners had approached the court without raising objections or giving representation against the notices in Form III. The court thus allowed the petitioners to raise their raise their objections and refer the documents which established the right of the petitioners. The petitioners, however, could not refer to any such documents and instead drew attention of court to a road built by the Public Works Department on the land of the Odai. The court however held that it could not accept this contention.

We otherwise cannot accept the argument aforesaid and if the said plea is accepted, then the encroachment overall in the State of Tamil Nadu on waterbodies and tanks cannot be removed though the encroachment on waterbodies and tanks is not permissible as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules and also the judgment of the Apex Court and even the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of T.K.Shanmugam (supra). It does not permit or give authority to the Government to even issue patta in the land of waterbodies and tanks.

Thus, the court was not in favour of granting the relief of the petitioners to direct the Government to issue patta in respect of waterbodies/tanks. Since the petitioners could not made out a case warranting interference in notices, the court dismissed the petitions.

"The problem of global warming is prevalent only because of the failure of the human being to take care of the nature. It is the bounden duty of every citizen to maintain water-bodies, tanks, grazing land and even forests. If we keep on affecting the nature, it would affect the human beings and it is happening day-in and day-out in the form of natural disasters like Tsunami, Earthquake, etc.," the court said in parting.

Case Title: Kamalanathan and others v. State and others

Case No: WP No 22408 of 2022 etc. batch

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.V.M.Venkatramana

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.Selvendran Spl. Government Pleader

Click here to read/download the judgment