Madras High Court
G.Boopalan vs The District Collector on 25 September, 2020
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh
W.P. No. 13622 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.09.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.13622 of 2020
& W.M.P.No. 16922 of 2020
G.Boopalan .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
2.Division/Section Officer,
PWD, Water Resources Organisation,
Sengundram Redhills,
Chennai – 600 052.
3.The Tahsildar,
Avadi Taluk Office,
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned order ie., Notice dated 14.09.2020 bearing
No.489/P.A/2020 sent by the second respondent under Rule 6(1) of
Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007
and to quash the same and further direct the second respondent or
anyone through the second respondent to refrain from taking any
adverse action against the petitioner's property until disposal of the
Page 1 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 13622 of 2020
petitioner's objections dated 16.09.2020 sent to the second
respondent as per law.
For Petitioner .. Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan
For Respondents .. Mr.G.Rajesh, Govt. Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007, by which, the petitioner was asked to remove the encroachment failing which consequences would follow.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard and the impugned has got consequence and the therefore, the same will have to be set aside
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the report based upon which the impugned order has been passed would indicate that the petitioner has Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 13622 of 2020 encroached upon a water body.
4.On a perusal of the impugned order issued in Form III under Rule 6(1) of the Rules framed pursuant to the power conferred under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, it could be seen that the petitioner has not been put on notice but, the impugned notice was passed on the premise that there is an encroachment. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order has got civil consequence. Therefore, the petitioner will have to be heard.
5.In such view of the matter, without setting aside the impugned order dated 14.09.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent we are treating the same as show cause notice. The objection of the petitioner dated 16.09.2020 given already will have to be considered by the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (A.Q., J.)
25.09.2020
Page 3 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 13622 of 2020
raa
Index: Yes/No
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
raa
To
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
2.Division/Section Officer,
PWD, Water Resources Organisation, Sengundram Redhills, Chennai – 600 052.
3.The Tahsildar, Avadi Taluk Office, Tiruvallur District.
W.P.No.13622 of 2020
25.09.2020 Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in