Long possession by itself is not a defence against eviction.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus for the reasons stated therein.)

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the land in S.No.65, Solur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District in which the petitioner is in occupation, unless by following the due process of law.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has constructed a house in the year 1960 in S.No.65, Solur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. He got electricity connection, his name has been included in the voters list and he has also a ration card and is living there for over 40 years. This property and some other Survey Numbers are included in the 4th ward of Solur Panchayat. There is a lake by name Periyankuppam from which water flows and used for irrigating several lands and it is far away from the petitioner’s house. The surplus water from the lake flows into Vellakkal dam. The Panchayat has constructed a canal for the flow of water from the lake. Only during rainy season, the lake is filled up to some extent. The Government has also constructed a building for the Magalir SuyaUdhavi Kuzhu, a public lavatory and other buildings for public usage. There is also a mosque near the house. On 5.11.2005, the third respondent Tahsildar came along with the Village Administrative Officer to that ward and informed the petitioner and the other residents that in view of the judgment in 2005 (4) CTC page 1, they are taking steps to remove the petitioner and others from S.No.65 etc., as those lands are classified as “Odai poramboke”. The third respondent took a list of names of occupiers of the disputed Survey Numbers and the occupants including the petitioners were asked to vacate the house and deliver vacant possession. When demanded by the petitioner, the third respondent refused to give any notice. This Court in several cases has held that the Government or local panchayats have no power or authority to evict or remove the encroachments without following due process of law. In fact the petitioner and others have been permitted to construct houses, water charges are being levied, electricity connection given, ration card issued and their names have also been included in the voters list. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be removed without following the due process of law. As the petitioner and others are threatened of eviction, the above writ petition has been necessitated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed property for the last 40 years by paying revenue charges, water charges and he has also got electricity connection and he has been assessed B-Memo all these years and as such, the threat by the third respondent basing the judgment of this Court in L.KRISHNAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2005 (4) CTC cannot be countenanced and that therefore, a writ of mandamus as sought for has to be granted.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the First Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision has directed the State Government to make an overall study of all such encroachments in respect of lands which have been classified as lands meant for storage of water, i.e. ponds, tanks, lakes, etc., and such a step is required to be taken by the State in order to improve the water storage facility prevailing in the State since in many parts of Tamil Nadu people are suffering from an acute shortage of water and as such, the 3rd respondent only in furtherance of implementing the order of this Court, has taken preliminary steps for encroaching the petitioner and others, who are occupying Odai Poramboke lands. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to maintain this writ petition.

5. In L. Krishnan’s case, the First Bench of this Court has cited several decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court and more particularly