S. RAJESWARI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Solai Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Pandiarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the third respondent in Form No.III in terms of Rule 6(1) of Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007. The impugned notice is furtherance to an order passed in an earlier batch of cases, which were disposed of by the Division Bench, in which the petitioner was the writ petitioner. The Division Bench, while declining to grant any positive relief for the petitioner, made an observation that it has to be verified as to whether the encroachment is inside the tank or outside the tank area and if it is outside the tank area and there is no hindrance to the water body, a protective order was granted. The petitioner is stated to have given representation dated 23.05.2011 enclosing the order passed in the batch of writ petitions dated 18.01.2012. After the issuance of the impugned Form III Notice, the petitioner is stated to have given another objection. In any event, since there was a positive direction issued by the Division Bench in the earlier order to remove the encroachment found inside the tank, the petitioner cannot have a second round of litigation.

(3.) Mr.J.Solomon Christhudoss, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D./W.R.O.(i/c), Periyar Main Canal Section, Sub Division No.1, Madurai is present in the Court and confirms that the petitioner has encroached into the tank. Though there has been some observations with regard to the encroachments lying in the bund, in our opinion, the bund of the tank also requires to be protected and there cannot be any construction on the tank bund and if any wall is constructed, that may slowly lead to damaging the tank bund as there is a likelihood of drainage water being let out etc. Therefore, it is the duty of the officials to protect the water bodies.