Dhamodharan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA WP.No.15117 of 2020 1.Dhamodharan 2.Jayalakshmi 3.Vittabhai 4.Thilagavathi 5.Sairam 6.Anuradha 7.Shanthi 8.Aadhilakshi 9.Balaji 10.Govindhammal 11.John Solomon 12.Padmavathy 13.Parthasarathy 14.Perumal 15.Selvi 16.Subathra 17.Sumathi 18.Vijayalakshmi 19.Karunakaran 20.Malligai 21.Megavathi 22.Ponammal 23.Rajesh 24.Saraswathi 25.Shanthi
26.Srinivasan 27.Mani 28.Gnanambikkai 29.Janakiraman 30.Kumar 31.Carolin Henry 32.Catherine Berlin 33.Amul 34.Bhuvaneshwari 35.Durgadevi 36.Lakshmi 37.Lakshmi 38.Periyanayagi 39.Subashini 40.Gajalakshmi 41.Vijayabala 42.Anushya 43.Chitra 44.Geethabhai 45.Leeladevi 46.Malarvizhi 47.Rajeswari 48.Rama Amirtham 49.Sathyapriya 50.Balaji 51.Durai Babu 52.Grace 53.Jayanthi 54.Joshuwa 55.M.S.Saleem 56.Mathews 57.Meena 58.Muthulakshmi 59.Poongothai
60.Poorani 61.Ramalu 62.Saraswathi 63.Sasikala 64.Vasantha 65.Jeyalakshmi 66.Saratha 67.Thulasi 68.Annakili 69.Devaki 70.Babu 71.Janakiraman 72.Kamalakannan 73.Mohanasundaran 74.Savithiri 75.Sundarajan 76.Aarokiya Mary 77.Fathima Mary 78.Malliga 79.Rathi 80.John Roselin 81.M.Vijaya 82.U.Vijaya 83.Bharathi 84.Pazhani 85.Raju 86.A.Nagalakshmi 87.Aadhiyammal 88.Lakshmi 89.Thiriupuraam 90.Devagi 91.Ganesh 92.Govindaraj 93.Karthik
94.Banu 95.Devika 96.Jagatha 97.Manimegalai 98.Muniyammal 99.Neela 100.Senthilvadivu 101.Manjula 102.Srihari 103.Yesodha 104.Shanthi 105.Iyyappan 106.Mohan 107.Indira 108.Shanthi 109.Vengammal 110.Vijaya 111.Devika 112.Karthikeyan 113.Lakshmi 114.Alamelu 115.A.J.Prasathmohan 116.Ganesh 117.Rani 118.Maheswari 119.Saraswathi 120.Amudha 121.Archana 122.Swarnalatha 123.Anuradha 124.Balaji 125.Balakrishnan 126.Bharathi 127.Dhanambal
128.Ethiraj 129.Flarance 130.Govindan 131.Indhumathi 132.Rajendran 133.Mahalakshmi 134.Malliga 135.Mani 136.Maragathammal 137.Ganapathy 138.Murugesan 139.Nagarathinam 140.Narayanamma 141.Neelamegan 142.Padmavathi 143.Persis Lisa Vijayarani 144.Ramani 145.Ruban 146.Ramachandran 147.Ranganathan 148.Rangaraj 149.Shanthi 150.Shanthi 151.Sujatha 152.Bhanupriya @ Tamilmalar 153.Kannan 154.Vijaya ..Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort st.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Chengalpet District, Chegalpet.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet.
4.The Thasildhar, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengalpattu, Chengalpet District.
5.The Assistant Engineer, Overseer of Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Chengelput District.
6.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Chitlapakkam, Chitlapakkam, Chengalpatu District.
..Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the 5th respondent show cause notice dated 23.09.2020 issued to the petitioners and quash the same and further forbearing the respondents from proceeding further the process of demolition and eviction and consequently direct them to follow the due process of law in evicting the petitioners from their properties situated in Survey No. 256/1, Chitlapakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpet District.
For Petitioners :
Mr.M.Vijay Anand For Respondents :
Mr.M.Elumalai Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R6
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,] The petitioners, who are 154 in number, claim to be in possession of land and superstructures in S.F.No.256/1,
Chitlapakkam Village, Chengalpet District, for more than 60 years and according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, they have put up superstructures and the said superstructures are also subjected to statutory levies. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that all of a sudden, to their shock and surprise, they have been issued with individual show cause notices by the 5th respondent alleging that they are in possession of certain extent of land in S.F.No.256/1, which is classified as 'Eri Poromboke' (water body poromboke). Some of the petitioners had also submitted their response to the show cause notice with documents. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners is that without considering the same, steps are being taken to summarily evict them from the land and superstructures and hence they came forward to file this Writ Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Amma E-service of Land Records and would submit that as per the said record, the land in S.F.No.256/1 of Chitlapakkam Village is notified as 'Government Poromboke' and therefore, the stand of the 5th respondent that it is a "water body poromboke" is per se unsustainable.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also filed the additional typed set of documents, giving details of Aadhar Card and other authenticated documents to show that the petitioners continue to remain in possession of the lands in question for very many decades and also put up superstructures which are also subjected to statutory levies and as such semblance of legal right has also been created to that effect. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that despite very many representations made by the petitioners for issuance of Patta, the Government is yet to take a call and therefore prays for appropriate orders to the respondents 2 to 5 respectively to consider and dispose of the representations and till such time, the 5th respondent may defer further proceedings, especially in the light of the onset of monsoon and COVID-19 pandemic virus.
4. Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and would submit that in the light of the various directions issued by this Court for removal of encroachments in water body, action has been taken in accordance with law and also drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned notices and would submit that it is only a show cause notice, for which, the petitioners are entitled to submit their replies with authenticated documents and on receipt of the same, it will be considered and give a disposal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in response to the said submission would submit that individual representations of the petitioners by enclosing relevant and authenticated documents have also been sent to the 5th respondent with copies marked to the jurisdictional District Collector also.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the materials placed before it.
7. A perusal of the materials would prima facie disclose that the claim made by the petitioners is based upon their long possession of the respective pieces of land in question and construction of superstructures, which are also subjected to statutory levies. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the light of the fact that the superstructures put up by the petitioners are also subjected to statutory levies, it can be termed as authorized one. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance and it is relevant to take into consideration the decision rendered by the Full Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court in 2005 (2) CTC 748 (Ramaraju Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.
George, Secretariat, Revenue Department) and the said judgment deals with the removal of encroachments from road and public streets. In paragraph no.38, a clarification was issued and it is relevant to extract sub para 3 of paragraph no.38, 'Payment of property tax, provisions of water connection or electricity by themselves cannot be construed as conferring any independent right, if the encroachment is otherwise unauthorized'.
8. Therefore it is open to the 2nd respondent to take necessary steps to find out whether the superstructures put up by the petitioners herein are authorised / unauthorised / deviated and if the result of the same discloses any unauthorised / deviated / illegal construction, immediate and necessary steps will be taken in accordance with law to demolish the same, by also adhering to the principles of natural justice, in response to the impugned show cause notices issued by the 5th respondent.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the individual replies by enclosing relevant necessary and authenticated documents have been submitted by the petitioners through a registered post with acknowledgment, the 5th respondent is directed to consider the said representations on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioners and till such time, shall defer further decision in terms of the impugned notices.
disposal of the representations to the 5th respondent, shall not create any third party in respect of the respective lands and superstructures in question.
9. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sk To 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort st.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Chengalpet District, Chegalpet.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet.
4.The Thasildhar, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengalpattu, Chengalpet District.
5.The Assistant Engineer, Overseer of Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Chengelput District.
6.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Chitlapakkam, Chitlapakkam, Chengalpatu District.
+2 Ccs to Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate sr 35676 +1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 36064.
WP.No.15117 of 2020 AD(CO) SP(23/11/2020)