Muniyan, v. Government Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22-01-2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH WRIT PETITION Nos.28025, 35012 and 35097 of 2014 1.Muniyan 2.Palanivel 3.Lakshmi 4.Saradha 5.Chinnakuzhandai 6.Mani 7.Pachaiyappan 8.Ellammal 9.Venugopal 10.Vadamalai 11.Rajalakshmi 12.Munusamy 13.Ramu 14.Sharmila 15.Arangesan 16.Devanathan 17.Thaayaar 18.Veerannan 19.Kumudhavalli 20.Valliammal 21.Santhanammal 22.Kuppusamy 23.Selvi 24.Saroja 25.Christy 26.Suvithamalar 27.Dhanam 28.Dhamodharan 29.Amudha 30.Ranganayaki 31.Manoharan 32.Kanniappan 33.Sampath 34.Alamelu 35.Selvi 36.Lalitha 37.Mala 38.Govindan 39.Presanna 40.Gopi 41.Selvi 42.Kayirunbee

43.Revathi 44.Esthaer 45.Sathiq Basha 46.Umapathy 47.Suresh 48.Mari 49.Raja 50.Jayakodi 51.Meera 52.Gopalakrishnan 53.Kaliamurthy 54.Anusuya 55.Valli 56.Valarmathi 57.Murugan 58.Uma 59.Santha 60.Jothi .. Petitioners in WP 28025/2014 1.Abdul Sarthar 2.Murugan 3.Malar 4.Mannammal 5.Sankar 6.Rangasamy 7.Gopal 8.Renuga 9.Senthil 10.Govindasamy 11.Samy 12.Devaki 13.Murugan 14.Amutha 15.Mayakannan 16.Dhanalakshmi 17.Dilshath 18.Selvarani 19.Sundari 20.Geetha 21.Sugitha 22.Sheik Abdullah 23.Sheik Bhasha 24.Varadharajan 25.Veerappan 26.Velu 27.Mallika 28.Saroja 29.Neelavathi 30.Subramani 31.Saroja 32.Salimabi 33.Shanthi 34.Muthu 35.Chitra 36.Muniammal

37.Ponnammal 38.Suseela 39.Perumal 40.Chinnasamy 41.Balakrishnan 42.Ranganathan 43.Thirupathy 44.Kader Bhasha 45.Ibrahim 46.Kattunbi 47.Rajamani 48.Babu 49.Perumal 50.Murugan 51.Krishna Gounder 52.Sowkathkhan 53.Farida 54.Rathinammal 55.Poongavanam 56.Pyaribi 57.Selvaraj 58.Sheik Babu 59.Abdul Salam 60.Ponni 61.Saritha 62.Rani 63.Gopal 64.Sheik Usman 65.Kathijabi 66.Antonysami 67.Lurdusamy 68.Sivagami 69.Mariaraj 70.Krishnan 71.Pyari 72.Naseema 73.Dowlath 74.Sekar 75.Srinivasan 76.Jothi 77.Pavunammal 78.Elumalai 79.Durairaj 80.Poongavanam 81.Sugunabai 82.Sudha 83.Sheik Jani 84.Manjula 85.Lalitha 86.Saraswathi (Annapoorani) 87.Sheik Masthan .. Petitioners in WP 35012/2014

1.R.Ramanathan 2.Kumar 3.Rajendran 4.Ravi 5.Malliga 6.Munusamy 7.Rajendran 8.Dhasarathan 9.Rangasamy 10.Palani, S/o. Pachaiyappan 11.Palani 12.Unnamalai 13.Munusamy 14.Dhanalakshmi 15.Lalitha 16.Krishnaveni 17.Rathinambal 18.Krishna Gounder 19.Ponni 20.Govindasamy 21.Jeyaram 22.Sudha 23.Rani 24.Rajeswari 25.Elumalai Gounder 26.Narayanan 27.Malar 28.Munusamy 29.Vijaya Rajeswari 30.Kandhan 31.Manibala 32.Nandhabai 33.Valarmathi 34.Badgi Saibu Ashain 35.Sharmila 36.Barveen 37.Perumal 38.Poongavanam 39.Padma 40.Jeyalakshmi 41.Lalitha 42.Lillimeri Therash 43.Malar .. Petitioner in WP 35097/2014 Vs 1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

2.The Commissioner for Land Administration Government of Tamil Nadu Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 3.The District Collector Villupuram District, Villupuram 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub Collector Gingee Revenue Division Gingee, Villupuram District 5.The Tahsildar Gingee Taluk Gingee, Villupuram District 6.The Executive Officer Gingee Town Panchayat Gingee, Villupuram District .. Respondents 1 to 6 in WP 28025, 35012 & 35097/2014 7.The Block Development Officer/ Commissioner Gingee Panchayat Union Gingee, Villupuram District .. 7th Respondent in WP 35012 & 35097/2014 WP No.

28025/2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 to 6 and their subordinates from interfering or disturbing petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their dwelling houses in S.Nos.16 and 18 of Krishnapuram Village, Gingee Town Panchayat, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District and consequently directing the respondents to consider issuance of site patta under the special scheme of the first respondent for the said houses of the petitioners herein within a stipulated time.

WP Nos.35012 and 35097/2014 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders made in Na.Ka.No.A2/18/2014 dated 7.10.2014, 17.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 issued by the sixth respondent respectively and quashing the same and consequently directing the fifth respondent to issue patta to the petitioners or any alternative land in terms of various Government Orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gandhi Senior Counsel for Mr.M.R.Jothimanian in WP 28025/2014 Mr.G.Ethirajulu in WP 35012 & 35097/2014 For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy Government Pleader for RR1 to 6 in all petitions & for R7 in WP 35012 & 35097/2014 COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE) We strongly deprecate the conduct of the concerned District Collector in issuing notices without any application of mind. The orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18056/2014, were clear in terms requiring action to be taken against "all such encroachments in the water bodies" and "after due process of law in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007". The notices seek to suggest that they are being issued because some directions have been issued by the Court, but without mentioning under what legal provisions, they have been issued.

2.Firstly, statutory duties are not performed and when the Court directs the authorities to perform the statutory duties, the burden is sought to be shifted as if they are only supposed to act under the Court order and not as per the statutory provisions. We do not even know whether these acts are of gross negligence or a deliberate attempt to send defective notices. 3.Learned Government Pleader assures this Court that the notices shall stand withdrawn and fresh action will be taken as per the statutory provisions.

4.We may make it clear that there is no need to refer to any Court order in the notices as what the authorities are doing is as per the provisions of a statute so that the affected parties will have their statutory remedies.

5.Learned Counsels for petitioners state that in fact, the affected parties are even entitled to pattas. Qua this aspect, the concerned authorities will examine as to whether the persons are liable to be evicted or entitled to pattas or otherwise.

6.The writ petitions are accordingly closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar.

/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.

nsv To:

1.The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 2.The Commissioner for Land Administration Government of Tamil Nadu Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 3.The District Collector Villupuram District, Villupuram 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub Collector Gingee Revenue Division Gingee, Villupuram District 5.The Tahsildar Gingee Taluk Gingee, Villupuram District 6.The Executive Officer Gingee Town Panchayat Gingee, Villupuram District 7.The Block Development Officer/ Commissioner Gingee Panchayat Union Gingee, Villupuram District +2ccs to Mr.G.Ethirajulu,Advocate SR.No.3881, 3302 +2ccs to Mr.V.R.Appaswamee, Advocate SR.No.3808 W.P.Nos.28025, 35012 and 35097 of 2014 mg[co] gp/28.1.15