Madras High Court
K.Ammasi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 22 June, 2018
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 11.06.2018
Date of Verdict : 22.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.9300 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.10319 of 2017 &
W.M.P.No.5681 of 2018
K.Ammasi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. Gearge, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chenppauk, Chennai -5.
3. The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Rasipuram - 637 408.
5. The Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer (GI)
Water Resources Organization,
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the issuance of the impugned order viz., G.O.Ms.No.26 Revenue [NI.MU.3(2)] Department dated 27.01.2017 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and also consequently to direct the first respondent to reclassify the subject land, viz., lands having an extent of 0.042 acres ie., 42 cents of lands situated in survey No.67 of Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and being in the possession of the petitioner from "River Poramboke" to "Ordinary Poramboke" or "Tharisu lands" and assign the same in the name of the petitioner in lieu of the petitioner's own patta lands, having an extent of about 6 cents situated in survey No. 40/2 of the same village, Taluk and District occupied by the Government for running a water canal on oral agreement reached several decades/centuries earlier or alternatively direct the respondent to remove the water canal from the lands of the petitioner, situated in the said survey No.40/2 of Mathiampatti Village before initiating any proceedings to evict the petitioner from the subject lands situated in Survey No.67 of said Mathiampatty Village.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.A.N.Thambidurai
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.01.2017, passed by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.26 Revenue [NI.MU.3(2)] and consequently prayed for direction, directing the first respondent to reclassify the land comprised in Survey No.67 ad measuring 42 cents situated at Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, from river poramboke to ordinary poramboke or tharisu land and assign the same in his favour, in lieu of the own patta land having an extent of 6 cents comprised in Survey No.40/2 of the same village, which is occupied by the Government for running a water canal.
2. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is a poor schedule caste person, working as agricultural labour for several decades. He purchased a patta land comprised in Survey No.40/2 ad measuring one acre situated at Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. He also enjoyed the land comprised in Survey No.40/1, 40/3 and in Survey No.67 classified as "River Poramboke" in the same village. In the patta land, ad measuring six cents were allowed to be used for Public Works Department canal without any acquisition and without paying any compensation. But it was given by his fore-fathers to the Public Works Department in lieu of oral permission given by the Public Works Department's Officials to cultivate the adjoining "River Poramboke" land comprised in Survey No.67 ad measuring 42 cents to compensate the same. Accordingly, the erstwhile owner and forefathers of the petitioner cultivated the same and thereafter, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
2.1. While being so, at the insistence of one Ganesan, the third respondent issued notice dated 03.09.2012 to vacate the house and land comprised in Survey No.67 and it was challenged in W.P.No.26461 of 2012 and by an order dated 03.10.2012, this Court directed the third respondent to treat the said notice as show cause notice and decide the issue after affording opportunity to the petitioner by way of his explanation. The third respondent without giving him any opportunity, rejected his request for granting patta by an order dated 20.03.2014 and further directed the Executive Engineer, Sarabanga Division, Namakkal District to evict the encroachments made by the petitioner in the river poramboke comprised in Survey No.67/1, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. In the mean while, the petitioner also submitted a representation dated 04.02.2013, to the third respondent and requested to issue patta for the land comprised in Survey No.67 and also requested to assign the same in his favour.
2.2. Again, the petitioner challenged the said order dated 20.03.2014, in W.P.No.8954 of 2014 and this Court by an order dated 18.02.2014, directed the second respondent herein, to consider the application dated 04.02.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits. Upon receipt of the said order, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and during the enquiry, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department submitted detailed report and based on the said report and the written submission submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent by an order dated 14.01.2015, rejected the claim to assign the land, cultivated by him, comprised in Survey No.67 of the said village and confirmed the order passed by the third respondent herein. In respect of the other relief sought for by the petitioner, in his representation dated 04.02.2013, for issuance of patta for the said land, the second respondent directed the third respondent herein, to reconsider the matter as a special case, after following the procedures laid down in G.O.(Ms).No. 142 Revenue (LD1(2)) Department, dated 23.05.2013 and if he is satisfied regarding the eligibility, send a proposal for issuance of patta to the petitioner and also stated that there is a ban to grant house site patta on objectionable poramboke as per G.O.Ms.No.372 Revenue (LD1(2)) Department, dated 26.08.2014.
2.3. Again, the third respondent by proceedings dated 13.11.2015, rejected the request of issuance of patta to the house of the petitioner for the reason that the land in question is classified as river poramboke in village account, in which the petitioner has constructed RCC roofed house and he is living there. Further on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.320 Public Works (W2) Department dated 28.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2014 and as per the Joint Committee report, the third respondent rejected the request for issuance of patta. Further he stated that as per the report of Field Inspection Committee, the petitioner's family and property would be affected during the flood and as such to protect the water body and the petitioner's family, it is appropriate to reject the request of the petitioner seeking patta for his house in the river poramboke land in Survey No.67 of the said village and further directing the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sarabanga Water Course Division, Namakkal District to remove the encroachments by following the appropriate rules.
2.4. Again, it was challenged by the petitioner by an appeal before the first respondent. In the interrugnum, the petitioner has also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2538 of 2016, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organizations, Rasipuram and this Court by order dated 25.01.2016, directed the petitioner to submit another representation to the Assistant Engineer and upon receipt of the same, the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, WRO, Rasipuram, was directed to examine the same and take consequential action. It was also challenged by the petitioner in S.L.P. No.4004 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and though interim order of status-quo, with regard to the possession of property, was granted and subsequently, it was dismissed on 31.10.2017, since the first respondent by the impugned order in G.O.Ms.26 Revenue [NI.MU.3(2)] Department dated 27.01.2017 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner prayed to intervene.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 0.40.5 hectares in Survey No.40/2 in patta No.190 situated in Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and his wife was assigned the land ad measuring 0.03.0 hectares and 0.11.5 hectares comprised in Survey No.40/1, 40/3 in Patta No.427, under the land Assigning Scheme for landless poor. Even then, the petitioner is claiming patta and assignment of the land comprised in Survey No.67 classified as "River Poramboke" of the said village and the petitioner encroached the same and it was highly objectionable water course poramboke land. Further, there is an existing ban by the Government to regularise the encroachment in the water course vide G.O.Ms.No.43, Revenue Department dated 29.01.2010. As such the petitioner was rightly issued eviction notice dated 04.09.2012, to vacate the encroached house and land comprised in Survey No.67 in the said village under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, as per G.O.Ms.No.320 Public Works (W2) Department dated 28.09.2007.
3.1. It is further contended that the land in question is encroached by the petitioner and it is highly objectionable water course poramboke land and endorsing the counter filed by the respondents 4 and 5. As per the report submitted by the fourth and fifth respondents herein and based on the enquiry, the third respondent found that the subject land in question comprised in Survey No.67 is classified as river poramboke and the petitioner constructed a concrete house and living there and it cannot be permitted in the water body poramboke land as per the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 and as per the G.O.Ms.No. 320 Public Works (W2) Department dated 28.09.2007. As such, the third respondent rightly directed the Executive Engineer, Sarabanga Division, Public Works Department, Namakkal District to evict the petitioner from river poramboke comprised in Survey No.67, Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
3.2. It is also contended that the subject land is highly objectionable water course poramboke land and as per the ban order of Government, not to regularise the encroachment in the water course poramboke, vide G.O.Ms.No.43, Revenue Department dated 29.01.2010, vide G.O.Ms.No.320 Public Works (W2) Department dated 28.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.540 Revenue Department dated 04.12.2014, the encroachment in the water body should be removed and it should be restored to protect the water body as per the repeated direction issued by this Court. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the typed set of papers, counter affidavits of the respondents and reply affidavits of the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased land comprised in Survey No.40/2 ad measuring 1 acre from one Eswaran by sale deed dated 25.08.1995 and registered as document No.1153 of 1995. During the purchase, the government poramboke land in Survey No.40/1, 40/3 and some portion in Survey No.67 classified as dry waste land and also some portion of Survey No.67 classified as river poramboke, were also in possession of the petitioner. Further in the year 2006, based on the enjoyment of the said land after satisfying with the rules and regulation, lands in Survey No.40/1 ad measuring 0.03.0 hectares and Survey No.40/3 ad measuring 0.11.5 hectares were assigned in favour of his wife namely Lakshmi, by the Tasildar vide reference No.Na.Ka.15174/2006/A2 dated 10.11.2006. The Revenue Standing Order No.15 is reads as follows :-
"15(3)(2)(ii) :- 'Landless Persons' means a person who owns a total extent of less than 1.21.5 hectares of land, if dry, or a total extent of less than 60.5 areas, if wet.
G.O.No.296, Revenue, dated 10.02.1954 G.O.Ms.No.1062, Revenue, dated 24.05.1971"
............
"15(3)(3)(i) :- Only landless and poor persons who are likely to engage themselves in direct cultivation shall be eligible for assignment of land free of land value subjected to the conditions of assignment, imposed in the 'D' Form patta. Co-operative societies consisting entirely of landless and poor persons who are likely to engage themselves in direct cultivation, shall also be eligible for cost free assignment of both valuable and non-valuable lands provided lands are available in compact blocks.
G.O.No.296, Revenue, dated 10.02.1954 G.O.Mis.No.1791, dated 21.12.1956 "
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is a landless poor and he is entitled for the assignment of land ad measuring 1.21.5 hectares as per the Revenue Standing Order cannot be sustainable. Already his wife was assigned land as mentioned above and he has also purchased land ad measuring 1 acre from the said Eswaran.
6. The further contention of the petitioner is that he is enjoying the Government poramboke land classified as dry waste land and some portion of the land classified as river poramboke with mutual agreement by the Public Works Department, since a portion of patta land comprised in Survey No.40/2, is being under the use of small water canal maintained by the Public Works Department to distribute the water from the river namely Thirumanimutharu and the said land allowed to be used without any acquisition and compensation and as such, to compensate the same in lieu of the permission granted by the Public Works Department Officials to his forefathers to enjoy the land comprised in Survey No.67 ad measuring 42 cents. Therefore, he is entitled for assignment of the said subject land. It is seen from the Revenue Standing Order 26 (15), which reads as follows :
"15. Encroachments on plan-marked details:- A plan-marked channel or pathway running in a patta land is a Government land. Eviction of encroachments in such lands need be invoked only in cases where the encroacher has interfered with the plan marked detail so as to close its entrance to and exit from his lands. In the case of pathways and cart tracks which have been used by the public till recently, the ryot should not be allowed to shift the course of the details to suit his own convenience. However, such diversions of plan marked channel from its original course, with a view to consolidate his holding or to facilitate irrigation of the portions which would be otherwise severed need not be treated as encroachment."
Therefore, the plan marked water canal running in a patta land is a Government land. If the said canal is interfered with the plan marked water canal they are liable to be evicted. Therefore, even though the water canal goes through the patta land of the petitioner, he cannot be compensated by assignment, that too highly objectionable water course poramboke. Further his family was already assigned land and derived the benefit of said scheme under the Revenue Standing Order 15 and as of now his family is having land for cultivation. Further the land classified as river poramboke is encroached by the petitioner and it cannot be assigned for the grounds raised by the petitioner, as if he is entitled for assignment of land as landless poor S.C. person as per the Revenue Standing Order clause 15. The subject land in question classified as river poramboke and it falls under the highly objectionable category. There is an existing ban order by the Government to regularise the encroachment in the water course poramboke vide G.O.Ms.No.43, Revenue Department dated 29.01.2010.
7. As far as the contention of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, while directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 23.04.2014, the petitioner was given opportunity to file reply for the report dated 31.05.2014 filed by the District Revenue Officers, Namakkal District and after receipt of the written statement of the petitioner, the second respondent passed the order on 14.01.2015. Therefore, the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his reply to the report submitted by the revenue Officials and also given opportunity to submit their written statements and only thereafter, the second respondent passed the well reasoned order, after discussing the reports and the Government orders issued in pursuant to the orders issued by this Court. In fact, the petitioner was given one more opportunity by directing the third respondent to reconsider the issuance of patta to the petitioner.
8. Once again, the third respondent conducted detailed enquiry, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the parties, rejected the claim of issuance of patta to the petitioner. After the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner was issued notice dated 04.01.2016 to remove the encroachment, by the fourth respondent herein. Even after filing an appeal before the first respondent as against the order passed by the third respondent dated 13.11.2015, the petitioner one again moved this Court in W.P.No.2538 of 2016, challenging the notice dated 04.01.2016. However, this Court recorded all the earlier proceedings and granted one week time to make a representation before the fourth respondent for consideration. Without satisfying with the same, the petitioner again approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as against the order made in W.P.No.2538 of 2016 in S.L.P.No.4004 of 2016. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granted interim order of status-quo and subsequently, it was dismissed by an order dated 31.10.2017, for the reason that the final order has been passed by the first respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing from 04.02.2013, when he was seeking issuance of patta for the subject land. Therefore, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice in the case of the petitioner, while passing the order dated 14.01.2015.
9. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents cannot evict the petitioner under the Revenue Standing Orders since, it has no statutory force and also cited the following judgments for consideration.
1. 1969 82 LS 688
2. 1998 1 LW 165
3. 1993 1 LW 272
4. 2005 1 SCC 558
5. 2005 3 LW 351
6. 2013 9 SCC 725
7. 2017 12 SCC 642 It is seen from the above judgments cited by the petitioner, the challenge is made against the Revenue Standing Order. But here, the eviction proceedings proceeded under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007. Therefore, the above cited decisions are not applicable to the present case in hand.
10. It is seen from the records, the land in question is highly objectionable water course poramboke and the encroachment has to be removed forthwith and the first respondent rightly issued the G.O.Ms.26 Revenue [NI.MU.3(2)] Department dated 27.01.2017. Further the prayer sought by the petitioner to reclassify the land in question from river poramboke to other dry waste land cannot be considered, since the said land was classified as river poramboke during the year 1937 itself by taking into account of the land proximity flow of quantum of water and the course of water to the lower reach. As per the judgment of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.320 Public Works (W2) Department dated 28.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2014 that the encroachment in the water body should be removed and the water body should be restored which have classified as such in the revenue records to its original position. Further there is an existing ban order of the Government in regularising the encroachment in the water course poramboke vide G.O.Ms.No.43 Revenue (LTD(1)(2) Department dated 29.01.2010. Therefore there is absolutely no chance for reclassification of land from river poramboke to dry waste land and no question of issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner for his house comprised in Survey No.67 classified as river poramboke.
11. To support the case of the respondents, the learned Additional Advocate General cited the judgment reported in "2015 5 LW 397 - T.K.Shanmugam, Secretary, C.P.I.(M) Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & others" and full bench of this Court, wherein it is held that as follows :-
"21. We may now refer to certain provisions of the RSOs with particular reference to water bodies. Part II of the RSO deals with disposal of land. RSO 15(5) states that only land, the assignment of which is unobjectionable shall be assigned, lands acquired for communal purposes shall not be assigned, tank-bed lands should on no account has been assigned without consulting an appropriate technical officer including the Chief Engineer and without specific orders from the Government. RSO 15(38)(ii) deals with water course poramboke and states that great care should be taken to preserve the margins of canals, channels and streams and the transfer and assignment of such water course source poramboke can be ordered only by Government in consultation with the Commissioner of Land Administration and the Chief Engineer (PWD), vide G.O.Ms.No.1267, Revenue, dated 29.12.1997. General instructions given for Land Administration states that encroachments in poramboke lands like water sources/courses, gracing grounds temple lands, kalam, etc., are considered as highly objectionable and these encroachments have to be evicted. The Revenue, Public Works and Highways Department authorities and local bodies like Municipalities and Corporation have been empowered to evict unauthorised encroachments after giving due notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for which a District level Committee under the Chairman of the District Collector has been constituted. Insofar as the directions contained in the RSO which are inconsistent with any other subsequent enactment or decision of this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court are deemed to have been superseded.
22.........
23. The legal position being thus, we are required to decide as to whether the provisions of the Tank Act does in any manner dilute the observations made in L.Krishnan's case, which view was quoted with approval in Jagpal Singh's Case. After having perused the decisions referred supra, the only answer to this question should be in the negative. We support our conclusion with the discussion in the following paragraphs :-
24. The Division Bench in L.Krishnan's case referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari, wherein the importance of tanks/ponds etc was highlighted in the following terms:-
"13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc., are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e., Respondents 11 to 13 having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites." (emphasis supplied)
25. After referring to the above observations, it was pointed out that having regard tot he precarious water situation prevailing in major part of the year in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is imperative that water storage resources such as tanks, ponds, odai, canals, etc., are not obliterated by the encroachers. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C.Metha, (supra), observing that the 'precautionary principle' makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environment degradation. Ultimately, the Division Bench directed the State Government to identify all such 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 resource which has been classified, as such in the revenue records to its original position.
26. Thus, the Division Bench in L.Krishnan, did not limit its directions to water bodies under the control of the Public Works Department. In fact, it has issued directions for all natural water resources in the different parts of the State of Tamil Nadu and wherever illegal encroachments are found to take steps for removal of the encroachments in accordance with relevan provisions of law. The State Government though fit to enact the Tank Act and though the object of the enactment was couched on a border principles, the Act was restricted to the encroachments in tanks which are under the control and Management of the Public Works Department. The question would be as to whether this would in any manner alter the position or could have an effect of diluting the directions/observations of the Division Bench in L.Krishnan's case. The answer to this question shall be an emphatic "No".
.............................
41. The next aspect would be as to how and in what manner the appropriate authority would come to a conclusion that such land is not required for any public purpose or for the State. It may be a policy decision in this regard, but such police decision has to satisfy the touch-stone of fairness and reasonableness and satisfy Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reading of the Government Orders show that the decision taken with regard to a particular land is not required for the Government for any public purpose is largely based on report submitted by the officials of the Revenue Department and invariably the justification is that people have been residing for a long period of time and there has not been any flow of water into tank/lake for several years or the water is unfit for human consumption. In our view, this can hardly be a justification, since the Revenue Authorities have turned a blind eye to encroachments on lands which have canals/channels through which the water flows into such water bodies. Once again the Government having failed to protect those feeder channels and canals cannot sight that as an excuse to say that there is no flow of water into the tank/lake and therefore, they would be justified in recommending regularisation of the encroachments.
42. Initially, the Government thought fit to bring about a scheme for regularisation of encroachment in 2006 as a one time measure as a special scheme for such of those persons, who have been in occupation of the Government lands for over 20 years. Though such was the proposal, when the Government issued the Order in G.O.Ms.No.854, the Government fixed the minimum period to be in occupation (encroachments) as 10 years. The basis of fixing 10 year period has not been disclosed nor does the Government Order explicitly state about the same, when the proposal was to recognise people in illegal occupation for over 20 years. The procedure to be adopted to ascertain the period of illegal occupation has not been clearly set out. This will and has led to arbitrariness, favourtism and nepotism. Though this was a one time scheme, the Government periodically extended the validity of the scheme and the last of such extension is upto 31.03.2015. Thus, to term the scheme as a one time scheme is a farce and appears to be an eyewash.
43. The second and more disturbing aspect is that the minimum period of illegal occupation was abruptly and arbitrarily reduced to five years and further reduced to three years and there is absolutely no justification for reducing the period of illegal occupation to get the benefit of regularisation. However, the Government Order reducing the period to 3 years has been stayed by this Court, but for which, we may assume that the period would have been further reduced.
44. The Government Orders starting from 30.12.2006 in G.O.(Ms)No.854, Revenue Department and subsequent Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.498, 711, 34, 43 and 372 dated 05.09.2007, 30.11.2007, 23.01.2008, 29.01.2010 and 26.08.2014 respectively, with particular reference to encroachments in water bodies are in clear violation of the public trust doctrine. Moreover, Article 51-A of the Constitution of India enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect the improve the national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creature. This Article is not only fundamental in the governance of the country but a duty on the State to apply these principles in making laws and further to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also the various laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures. But unfortunately, the State, by passing the above said Government Order, actively encourages encroachers of water bodies, to indulge in illegal and unlawful activities and also bent upon regularizing their possession which has to be deprecated."
12. In the light of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to reclassify the subject land namely comprised in Survey No.67 ad measuring 42 cents of land situated at Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, from river poramboke to ordinary poramboke or tharisu lands and assignment of the same. Further he is also not entitled for issuance of patta for his house situated in Survey No.67/1 ad measuring 6 cents in the same village. In respect of the consequential direction sought for by the petitioner to remove the water canal from his land comprised in Survey No.40/2, situated at the same village is also negative, since as per the Revenue Standing Order 26(15), the plan marked canal or path way running in the patta land is a Government land. Therefore, if the petitioner makes any encroachment in such lands, he should be evicted. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.
[M.S.N.,J] [G.K.I.,J]
22.06.2018
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rts
To
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. Gearge, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chenppauk, Chennai -5.
3. The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Rasipuram - 637 408.
5. The Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer (GI)
Water Resources Organization,
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,
rts
Pre-delivery Order in
W.P.No.9300 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.10319 of 2017
& W.M.P.No.5681 of 2018
.06.2018