The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining water bodies in public interest and directs the removal of illegal encroachments, aligning with the legal provisions and previous court decisions related to environmental protection.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

This writ petition, in public interest, was preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to desist from undertaking any construction activity in the Gopal Samudram Lake, Dindigul and to restore the lake to its original condition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that during last many decades, large scale deforestation in the hills surrounding Dindigul town has started, which depleted the surface water in flow into the town. The quality of water has also deteriorated apart from declining of surface water quality in view of opening of number of leather tanning units. Due to inactivity on the part of the respondents and their indifference to the issue, water scarcity has developed in the area. The aforesaid lake, which is a source of water for the Dindigul town, has been encroached and number of construction activity had commenced in a portion of such water body.

3. The 3rd respondent, District Collector, Dindigul, filed his counter affidavit. It is accepted that in the part of Gopal Samudram tank, a Government Hospital has been constructed, a Hanuman temple and a road is also existing apart from illegal encroachment made by sixty individuals. The Madurai Collector, vide his proceeding No.J4/184049/74 dated 29th Sept., 1974, accorded permission for expansion of Government Hospital, Dindigul and changes were carried out both in the town and taluk accounts and the land was handed over to Medical Department on 21st Feb., 1975. The Government of India has sanctioned Rs.28 lakhs for Dindigul District, which, in turn, was allotted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to Dindigul District by G.O. Ms. No.192/SGSY dated 19th July, 2000. Pursuant to the same, vide proceeding ROC No.D4/49030/2000/ dated 8th Sept., 2000, the Collector had accorded permission to enter upon the land in S.No.400/4B measuring an extent of 13090 sq.ft. (30 cents) for construction of a marketing complex under the Swarnajayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana (hereinafter referred to as SGSY). The construction was started and apart from godown and medical equipment, SGSY Marketing Complex has been constructed prior to filing of the writ petition. In paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, the following statement has been made:-

"8. It is submitted that the land classified as Gopalsamudram tank has been sub-divided as follows:-

There are 60 individuals who have illegally encroached upon the lands in S.No.400/1 and 3 and put up structures. Action is being initiated to evict the illegal encroachers on the government land as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Gopalsamudram Tank does not have any inlet channel nor has it any sluice or ayacut or surplus weir. The Gopalsamudram Tank, as per records, has never been a large water body for ground water recharge as per records available. The Inspection Report of the then Tahsildar dated 23. 1970 clearly shows that the tank was receiving the dirty water emptied by the municipal street drains and the refuse, etc., emptied by the municipal carts making the tank water unfit for any purpose. The water stored served as a nursery for mosquitoes. In the same report, Tahsildar has stated that District Revenue Officer inspected the tank on 22. 1968 and recommended for closure of the tank. There has been no attempt by the Municipality to encroach upon the portion of land measuring 3 acres and 5720 sq.ft., classified as Gopalsamudram Tank. On the other hand, there are about 60 encroachments by individuals. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is false and frivolous."

4. In the present case, an interim order of injunction was passed on 17th Feb, 2002, which was subsequently vacated on 10th April, 2002, in view of the fact that the construction of hospital, etc., had already started and was at the stage of completion. On 26th June, 2007, the Court asked to the respondents to give the following information:-

"i) The area on which construction