K.V.Mageshwara Singh v. State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :31.08.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No. 26124 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 K.V.Mageshwara Singh ..Petitioner vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Tahsildar, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai.
5. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep.by its Chariman-cum-Managing Director, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
.. Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to re-allot/re-assign the lands in survey Nos.46/1; 46/2 & 47/1 at Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, to the petitioner, which were originally allotted/assigned in favour of the petitioner's father and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 mutate all revenue records so as to reflect the petitioner's name for the said lands.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.S. Hasan Fizal Ms.R.Anitha For Respondents: Mr.R.S. Selvzm Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr.V.Anandha Murthy for R4
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to reallot or reassign the land in S.Nos.46/1, 46/2 and 47/1 at Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, to the petitioner which were originally allotted / assigned in favour of the petitioner's father and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to mutate all revenue records so as to reflect the petitioner's name for the said land.
2. The petitioner states that his father late Mr.K.B.Vasudeva Singh, who was a Freedom Fighter and was receiving Freedom Fighter's pension till his death. The Government had allotted lands in S.Nos.46/1, 46/2 and 47/1 measuring to an extent of 5.16 acres at No.82, Nolambur Village, now Ambattur Taluk, then Saidapet Taluk. Admittedly, the land was classified as ''Government Poromboke'' as per the revenue records. The District Collector, Kancheepuram in Letter dated 24.09.1984 intimated the father of the writ petitioner that the lands allotted to his father were acquired by 5th respondent / Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thereafter, the father of the writ petitioner submitted a representation to provide alternate lands.
The case of the father of the petitioner was recommended by the then District Revenue Officer, Chengelpattu, in letter dated 15.02.1988. In spite of the repeated requests, the land was not allotted to be utilized by the father of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, after the death of his father continued the efforts of getting the lands assigned in his favour. However, no action has been taken by the authorities to assign the land in favour of his father as well as in his name. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 relying on the counter statement filed by the 4th respondent states that admittedly all the Adangal extracts produced by the writ petitioner for F 1385, reveals that the father of the writ petitioner has enjoyed the Government land in S.Nos.46/1, 46/2 for an extent of 0.40 cents and 3.25 acres by way of cultivation which was classified as ''Eri Ulvoy'' and ''Mandaveli'' in revenue records. Mere enjoyment of the Government land by way of cultivation will not account any rights over the property. The Government have not
allotted the above lands to the writ petitioner nor in favour of his father. The writ petitioner also has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of the allotment made by the Government in favour of his father. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram in his letter dated 03.03.2000 has only forwarded the letter for consideration. Thus, the same cannot be construed as a recommendation in favour of the writ petitioner.
4. The internal correspondence between the revenue officials and other authorities are no way connected with the petitioner, as the petitioner has not assigned with any Government land in his favour, so also no such lands were assigned in favour of the father of the writ petitioner. The classification entered in the revenue records are extracted hereunder:
9.I submit that the lands in question in S.No.46/1, 46/2 and 47/1 of Nolambur Village are classified as Government Poramboke Lands, the TNHB has no control over it.
I also submit that the lands in question are classified as follows in Revenue Records.
S.No Extent Classification Present Status 46/1 0.15.0 Ares Eri Ulvoi Drainage Proposal sent.
46/2 1.36.0 Ares Manthaiveli Driver Association Proposal sent 47/1 0.11.0 Ares Manthaiveli Nethralaya School Lease
5. It is further contended that the lands in question are Government Poromboke lands, which is vested with the Collector. Since, the lands are Government Poromboke lands, it cannot be acquired even by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has never acquired the above said lands. Thus, the question of handing over back the lands to the Revenue Department does not arise at all. The said lands are not assigned to the father of the writ petitioner. Thus, the question of re-allotment of land to the writ petitioner does not arise at all. The lands in question have been classified as Government Poromboke lands. The above lands are classified as ''Eri Ulvoy'' (water course). The power of change of classification is vested with the Collector, Revenue Department and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be considered at all.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has to consider the several consequences of encroachments of Government lands and more specifically, the
water bodies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also time and again emphasized that the encroachments made in water bodies are to be removed without any delay.
7. The legal principles settled by this Court in W.P.No.4779 of 2015 dated 13.08.2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
''11.ENCROACHMENT - AS AN ISSUE:-
(1) The Black's Law Dictionary defines encroachment as "an infringement of another's rights; an interference with or intrusion onto another's property". The word 'Encroach' is defined as "to enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to trespass or intrude; to gain or intrude unlawfully onto another's lands, property or authority". Thus, it is unambiguous that encroachment is an offence. Encroachment amounts to a criminal trespass into the property belongs to another.
(2)The definition of encroachment is also defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905). Encroachment means, unauthorised occupation of land and public land by way of putting temporary, or permanent structure for residential or commercial use or any other use.
(3) The encroachment process gradually gains momentum from the following factors:- (i) Lack of periodical monitoring;
(ii) Weakening of Social bondage;
(iii) People's justification of their position by citing wrong examples;
(iv) Delayed realisation of the ill-effects caused by encroachments;
(v) Negligence of Government functionaries and lack of timely action. However, it is pertinent to note the fact that the basis of the alarming rise of encroachments is the greed, selfishness, and jealousy of people.
(4) Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code states; "whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit 'criminal trespass'." The term 'criminal trespass' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "a person who enters on the property of another without
any right, lawful authority or an express or implied invitation or licence". But when trespass is committed with a criminal intention, it is treated as an offence and is made punishable under the Indian Penal Code. A punishment is that "whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) The land encroachment is a social evil. Encroachment is a passive form of land grab movement, which mirrors man's innate greed for land and his natural tendency towards aggrandizement of wealth in any form. Encroachment of Government property is a loss not only for the Government but also the public, as huge amount of money would be spent again to acquire new property.
(6)The Government lands are for the welfare of the public in general and to create common infrastructure for the usage and benefit of, we the people of India. Thus, the matter of encroachment of Government land cannot be treated ordinarily and it should be treated as a grave offence against, the State.
(7) Article 300-A of the Constitution of India deals with persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Thus, the State being a "person", cannot be deprived of its right of property and any intruder is liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act as well as under the Penal Law. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the rights conferred to a person under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, is certainly available to the State and the State has got every right to initiate appropriate legal action against the encroachers.
(8) The preamble of the Constitution 'WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA', is the heart and soul of the Constitution. Article 12 of the Constitution provides definition for the State. Accordingly, 'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Thus, State is a person and therefore, all public lands belong to the State and we the people of India are the owners of the land. Thus, the right of property provided under Article 300-A is to be extended to the State as a
person. In other words, the property belongs to the State is also protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Thus, any encroacher of a public/Government land is certainly depriving the right of property of the State to possess the same under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the question of de-linking such encroachers otherwise will not arise at all. Question of extending the equality clause or the discrimination clause will not arise at all to the encroacher as an offender and an offender citing the offence committed by one offender, another one cannot claim that he should also be exonerated from the offence. Such a dangerous proposition, cannot be adopted at any circumstances and in the event of connivance with the officials in this regard also to be viewed very seriously.
(9) This Court wishes to ask a question whether any citizen of this country will allow another citizen to encroach the property owned by him. Litigations in lakhs and lakhs are pending before various Courts in our Great Nation only to establish the rights of such citizen in respect of their property. Such being the law of this country, how a State land can be allowed to be encroached by another citizen and such offences are dealt in a casual manner by the officials. Due to the constant increase of market value of the immovable property in this Great Nation, the public officials are also contributing for the dilution of the implementation of various laws in this regard, more specifically, while dealing with the Government lands. Such actions deserve to be condemned and such officials are to be dealt with iron-heart and no leniency can be shown to such public officials.
12.The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is an Act, which provide measures for taking unauthorised occupation of land which are the property of the Government. The preamble of the Act provide measures for checking unauthorised occupation of lands which are the property of the Government, whereas, it has been the practice to check the unauthorised occupation of lands which are the property of the Government and by imposition of penal or prohibitory assessment or charge and whereas, the doubts have arisen as to how far such practice is authorized by law and it is expedient to make statutory provision for checking such occupation. The Act provides for removal of encroachment and and the implementation of the Act by the Government officials are to be done in a manner prescribed under the Act. Any violation of the officials also to be viewed
seriously.
13.With this background, it is necessary to go into the legal principles laid down by the Courts on encroachments:
(i)In PANDIA NADAR AND ORS v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS [ 1974 AIR 2044], the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered a Judgment on 30th April 1974 wherein, the very constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was tested. While dismissing the Appeals filed by land encroachers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
This Court then went on to apply those principles to the statutes under consideration in the following words : "The statute itself in the two classes of cases before us clearly lays down the purpose behind them, that is that premises belonging to the Corporation and the Government should be subject to speedy procedure in the matter of evicting unauthorized persons occupying them. This is a sufficient guidance for the authorities on whom the power has been conferred. With such an indication clearly given in the statutes one expects the officers concerned to avail themselves of the procedures prescribed by the Acts and not resort to the dilatory procedure of the ordinary Civil Court.
Ever, normally one cannot imagine an officer having the choice of two procedures, one which enables him to get possession of the property quickly and the other which would be a prolonged one, to resort to the latter. Administrative officers, no less than the courts, do not function in a vacuum. It would be extremely unreal to hold that an administrative officer would in taking proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants of Government property or Municipal property resort to the procedure prescribed by the two Acts in one case and to the ordinary Civil Court in the other. The provisions of these two Acts cannot be struck down on the fanciful theory that power would be exercised in such an unrealistic fashion.
In considering whether the officers would be discriminating between one set of persons and another one has got to take into account normal human behaviour and not behaviour which is abnormal. It is not every fancied possibility of discrimination but the real risk of discrimination that we must take into account. This is not one of those cages where discrimination is writ large on the face of the statute. Discrimination may, be possible but is very improbable. And if there is discrimination in actual (1) [1952] SCR 435 (2) [1962] 2 SCR 125 (3) [1960] 2 SCR 646 (4) [1954] SCR 30.
practice this Court is not powerless. Furthermore, the fact that the Legislature considered that the ordinary procedure is insufficient or ineffective in evicting unauthorised occupants of Government and Corporation property, and provided a special speedy procedure therefore is a clear guidance for the authorities charged with the duty of evicting unauthorised occupants. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the majority in the Northern India Caterers' case." (ii)In KRISHNAN,L. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2005 (4) CTC 1], His Lordship Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, speaking for the Bench, held as follows:
"9. In this connection reference may be made to Article 48A of the Constitution which states: - "Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life: - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country."
10. No doubt the above provision is in the Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is now well settled that the fundamental rights and directive principles have to be read together, since it has been mentioned in Article 37 that the principles d down in the Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. The Directive Principles embody the aim and object of the State under a Republican Constitution, i.e., that it is a welfare State and not a mere police State, vide Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala, (197 3) 4 SCC 225 (vide paragraphs - 134, 139 and 1714) and embodies the ideal of socio-economic justice, vide Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 988 (990).
11. Though the early decisions of the Supreme Court paid comparatively scant attention to the Directive Principles in Part - IV of the Constitution as they were said to be non-justiciable and nonenforceable in the Courts (vide Article 37), the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court changed this trend and this new trend reached its culmination in the 13 member bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati's Case (Supra), which laid down that there is no disharmony between the directive principles and fundamental rights because they supplement each other in aiming at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and the establishment of a welfare State, which is envisaged in
the Preamble to the Constitution. The Constitution aims at a synthesis of the two, and the Directive Principles constitute " the conscience of the Constitution". Together they form the core of the Constitution, vide Markandeya, V. Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1989 SC 1308 (paragraph - 9). They are not exclusionary, but are complementary to each other, vide Unnikrishnan, J.P. Vs. State of A.P., AIR 199 3 SC 2178. It follows therefore that the courts should uphold, as far as possible, legislation enacted by the State which seeks to remove inequalities and attain 'distributive justice', vide, Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 389 (paragraphs 1 6 and 20), Manchegowda Vs. State of Karnataka,AIR 1984 SC 1151, Fateh Chand Himmatlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825, etc.
, In recent decisions the Supreme Court has been issuing various directions to the Government and administrative authorities to take positive action to remove the grievances which have been caused by nonimplementation of the Directive Principles, vide Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vs. Jagannathan, AIR 1987 SC 537 (paragraphs 20-21), Mukesh Advani Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 1363, Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 549, etc.
12. Apart from the above we may also refer to Article 51A(g) of the Constitution which makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". This duty can be enforced by the Court, vide Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund Vs . Union of India (supra, vide para-15). 13......
14. 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."
(iii)In an important Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JAGPAL SING v. STATE OF PUNJAB [ AIR 2011 SCC 1123], has held as follows:
"13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. "
21. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed."
14.It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the portion of the land encroached by the writ petitioner is a Government Poramboke land, which is preserved as water body. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in the case of T.S.Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Public Works Department, in W.P.No.20021 of 2008 dated 10.02.2010 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: "From the above, it is seen that the Act in question has come not a day sooner, because we have seen that the Ramsar Convention includes as wetlands, not only natural wet lands, but even human-made wetlands such as waste water treatment ponds and reservoirs. Therefore, tanks and tank poramboke lands would definitely require protection from encroachment."
"18.Considering the fact that we have adopted wet land conservation policy which takes note of the environmental value and functions of wet lands and the fact that they deserve to be protected, the State may take steps to protect all water bodies and not only tanks. In L.Krishnan's case - AIR 2005 Madras 311, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 3215, where the maintenance of ecological balance has been highlighted and this Court has also specifically indicated that it is imperative to see that water storage resources such as tanks, odais, oranis, canals are not obliterated by encroachers. Right to water is a part of life and, therefore, as observed by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v.
Kamal Devi and others - AIR 2001 SC 3215, demands of economic development must be made without compromising the natural resources of the earth which this generation holds in trust for future generation. The order of inter-generational equity has to be remembered and in fact in the Rio Declaration, to which India is a party, it has been affirmed that environmental protection constitutes an integral part of sustainable development and cannot be isolated from it."
"19.Persistent developmental activities, ignoring the need to protect natural resources, have caused irreparable damage. It is also necessary that the State shall not invoke Section 12 of the Act which results in alienation of tank poramboke lands citing "public interest". Protection of water resources is as much as a public interest issue as any other requirement. The Government may also bear in mind that water resources have to be protected while issuing patta to persons who claim to have resided in the same place for a number of years."
15.The Hon'ble High Court, in the above said case issued directions to the State, which reads as under: "(a)The State shall scrupulously follow the provisions of the Act. It shall also ensure that all the District Collectors and other authorities, who are concerned with the observance of the provisions of the Act, strictly follow the letter, dated 10.10.2007. (b)The District Collectors, while creating adequate awareness, may also enlist the help of Self Help Groups to disseminate the message that protection of water resources will actually promote the welfare of the villages and therefore it is in the interest of every citizen to make sure that he is not encroaching
on a tank and to clear tanks and water bodies which are filled with garbage and to avoid dumping of garbage will automatically enhance and improve the public health of the community.
(c)As already stated, the State will ensure that alienation of tank poramboke lands, citing public interest, shall not be made under Section 12 of the Act. The meaning and weight of the words "public interest" shall be implicitly borne in mind.
(d)The State holds all the water bodies in public trust for the welfare of this generation and all the succeeding generations and, therefore, protecting water bodies must be given as much weightage, if not more as allowing house-sites or other buildings to come up on such tanks or tank poramboke lands, and water charged lands.
(e)The State shall also bear in mind the provisions of this Act and the objects and reasons of this Act while issuing patta to persons who claim to have resided in the same place for a number of years and if necessary modify the relevant Government Orders to make sure that the implementation of these G.Os. are not in violation of this very valuable and important Act, namely Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007."
16.The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in W.P.No.26364 to 26376 of 2017 dated 10.10.2017, held as follows:
"8.A perusal of the typed set of documents filed in support of these writ petitions would reveal a shocking and sorry state of affairs. Admittedly, the petitioners are ranked encroachers and however, the concerned revenue officials have failed to take action at the relevant point of time and therefore, allowed them to perpetuate the illegality and the petitioners/their predecessors have, not only stopped with the illegal act of encroachment ; but also got emboldened on account of the inaction on the part of the revenue officials as well as the Local Body officials and proceeded to construct palatial superstructures, without any authorisation or planning permission and also leased out the same for commercial purposes. It appears that it was / is a deliberate and wilful act on the part of the revenue officials as well as the Local Body officials as to the non-taking of any action to abate such illegalities."
"The respondents shall cause inspection of the entire area in question and identify the encroachers as well as the unauthorised / deviated constructions and take necessary and appropriate action within a
period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a COMPLIANCE REPORT to this Court."
"The Administrative Department of the Government is directed to identify the officials concerned as to the continued laxity and exhibition of callousness and apathy in performing / discharging their official duties and neglect in protecting the assets of the Government and initiate appropriate Departmental and Criminal action and also file a Status Report." 17.From the said judgments delivered based on the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, it is clear that all "Kuttai Poramboke", "Pond Poramboke" and other Poramboke lands belongs to the Government are to be preserved for protecting the Environment and for the usage of the public at large.
In this case, it is categorically admitted even by the writ petitioners' that they have encroached the Government Poramboke land and it was classified as "Vari Poramboke lands" and "Pond Poramboke lands", which all are water bodies. Thus, there cannot be any leniency or misplaced sympathy in respect of such encroachments of the Government land and the authorities competent are duty bound to protect the same in all respects. However, this Court is able to find out that the officials have miserably failed to protect such valuable lands of the Government and submitted frequent proposals in favour of the writ petitioners' on extraneous considerations, enabling them to pursue the matter for getting permission in an illegal manner.
Thus, the public officials have colluded with the writ petitioner company for the purpose of the continuance of encroachment of such Government Poramboke lands. All such Government officials are liable for prosecution and suitable disciplinary proceedings are also to be initiated against such persons. The Government officials are the abettors and have equally committed an offence by assisting the writ petitioners' to encroach the land and continue in the encroached land for the past about many years. Thus, the officials concerned are equally responsible''.
8. This Court is of an opinion that in respect of water bodies and Government Poromboke lands, the respective District Collectors are bound to initiate appropriate action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007.
9. This Court is of an opinion that the District Collector is bound to conduct periodical review meetings and issue suitable orders to the concerned officials to identify all such
encroachments in the Government Poromboke lands and water bodies and take steps to evict all such encroachers by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant Statutes. In the event of any violation on the part of the concerned officials, the same should be viewed seriously and the District Collector is bound to initiate suitable prosecution and the disciplinary proceedings against all such officials, who have committed an act of negligence or dereliction on duty.
10. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, the land in question is classified as ''Eri Ulvoy'', which is water course and therefore, this Court cannot show any leniency and the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The respondents are directed to inspect the land in question within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if there is any encroachment, the same shall be evicted by following the procedures as contemplated under law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with the above directions to the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sk/pns To
1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Districty Collector, Tiruivallur District.
4. The Tahsildar, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai.
5. The Chariman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
+1 CC to Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Advocate sr 60213. +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 60611.
W.P.No.26124 of 2015 SP(24/09/2018)