B. THANGARAJ Vs. SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these writ petitions a challenge is made to the notices dtd. 20/11/2021 issued in Form-III under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007 [for brevity, "the Rules of 2007"].

(2.) The challenge to the notices has been made mainly on the ground that the lands in question belong to the petitioners and they are having valid title in proof thereof, yet ignoring the aforesaid the notices in Form III were issued. The petitioners sent their replies/objections to the notices. However, no order on it has been passed. Since the respondents were pursuing action to remove the constructions, the petitioners were left with no option but to file the present writ petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has given reference of a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of T.S.Senthil Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2010) 3 MLJ 771, and also a Larger Bench judgment in the case of T.K.Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 8 MLJ 1 (FB). In the case of T.S.Senthil Kumar (supra), the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 [for short, "the Act of 2007"] and Rules of 2007 was challenged. The provisions were held to be constitutionally valid, but to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice, a direction was given to the effect that when the officer of the Public Works Department publishes the notice in Form-II in the notice boards of the offices of the Village Administrative Officer, Village Panchayat Office and the Water Resources Organization, the notice shall also be issued to the alleged encroacher to the effect that the survey indicates that the place in his/her occupation is an encroachment and secondly, the notice in Form-III may be issued. It was further directed that the encroacher may give his/her objections relating to the classification of the land in his/her occupation and the nature of the encroachment within a period of two weeks. The authorities were directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, in the instant case, though the petitioners sent their replies/objections, no order has yet been passed. Thus, the prayer is made to either quash the notice in FormIII issued under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2007 or to direct the respondents to consider the replies/objections given by them and pass appropriate orders. It is in the background that the petitioners have placed on record certain documents to show their title and it is not such a case where the petitioners failed to show their right to possess the land.