Ratios:
a. Preservation and protection of the source of irrigation for the agricultural lands are a part of the right to life of the farmers and agricultural labourers and are protected under Art.21 of the Constitution of India.
b. The right to life of the poor and downtrodden which includes their right to rehabilitate as guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India does not extend to encroaching the water bodies.
c. The Government cannot grant patta to any encroacher for the lands or public tanks which are the source of water for agricultural operation of the ayacutdars.

Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.21-Right to life-Environment-Agriculture-Water bodies-Tank-Irrigation tank-Encroachment-Removal-Members of the petitioner association had encroached a part of tank and living there for a long time-Road, electricity etc facilities were already provided-Already most of the encroachers were removed-Remaining encroachers were sought to be removed and notices were issued to them-They challenged the notice and contended that they were residing there for a long time, all civic amenities were already provided, it was not a water logging area and the District collector had already recommended for the grant of patta-While the authorities supported the plea of the encroachers, the ayacutdars of the water body objected it and contended that maintaining water body is important for sustainable development and maintaining ecological balance-Held, better environment is a part of right to life-Water body is not to be converted into house site on the ground of its encroachment-Authorities were granted 6 weeks time to remove the encroachment-Writ petitions were dismissed.
        (B)Constitution of India-Art.21-Right to life-Environment-Agriculture-Water bodies-Tank-Irrigation tank-Preservation and protection of the source of irrigation for the agricultural lands are a part of the right to life of the farmers and agricultural labourers and are protected under Art.21 of the Constitution of India.
        This right of these poor and downtrodden people, who are involved in agricultural sector, is also a part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which needs to be preserved. It is needless to say that every endeavour should, therefore, be taken by the Government to ensure that the irrigation sources are in no manner disturbed or reduced by any agency or individual. Para 14
        (C)Constitution of India-Art.21-Right to life-Poor people-Rehabilitation-Environment-Water bodies-Tank-Irrigation tank-Encroachment-The right to life of the poor and downtrodden which includes their right to rehabilitate as guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India does not extend to encroaching the water bodies.
        Though it is the right of these encroachers to seek the Government to rehabilitate them, as the same is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, such a right cannot be extended to the level of encroaching upon the water sources. Therefore, on the ground that there are no other alternative sites available in Palani Municipality Limits and on the ground that these encroachers have been living there for more than two decades and on the ground that there is likelihood of law and order problem, the encroachers cannot be allowed to continue. It is for the District Administration to see that the encroachers are removed and at the same time, these landless poor are rehabilitated appropriately. Para 19
        (D)Constitution of India-Art.21-Right to life-Environment-Agriculture-Water bodies-Tank-Irrigation tank-Encroachment-Removal-The Government cannot grant patta to any encroacher for the lands or public tanks which are the source of water for agricultural operation of the ayacutdars.
        Therefore, the Committee, which is now considering the question of grant of patta to the writ petitioners, has got no jurisdiction to decide the same, as the said committee can consider grant of patta only in respect of lands or tanks, other than tanks over which the ayacutdars have got right of irrigation as grant of such patta in respect of irrigation tank, would substantially affect their livelihood. Para 24

S.Nagamuthu,J:- The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7440 of 2009 is an Association known as "Uppliyanthittu Kamarajar Nagar Residents Welfare Association". Its members are the encroachers in Survey No.1203/1 and 1203/2 of Palani Village, Dindigul District, which has been classified as a 'tank poramboke', wherein Sirunaickenkulam Tank is located. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.7552 of 2009 are the encroachers in Survey No.836/1A1 of Palani Village, wherein Vaiyapuri Tank is located.

2.According to the writ petitioners, these encroachers have been in possession of the respective occupations for more than two decades. They have constructed pucca houses, for which basic amenities like drinking water facility, electricity service connection, road, pathway, etc. have been provided. They have also made representations to the Government to grant patta for their respective occupation, as per G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006. They claim that the local Municipality has passed a Resolution on 30.04.2007 recommending to the Government to grant such pattas to the encroachers. The District Collector has also made a similar recommendation, it is stated. It is further stated that it is under the consideration of the District Committee constituted for the said purpose to find out the feasibility of granting patta to the encroachers. While that be so, according to the petitioners, attempt is now made by the respondents to remove them from their respective encroachment. With the said grievance, they have come forward with these writ petitions seeking appropriate relief.

3.The case has got its own chequered history. Admittedly, Vaiyapuri and Sirunaicken Tanks are irrigation tanks and there are registered ayacuts which are enjoying the benefit of irrigation from these two tanks. During the year 1992, an attempt was made by the local Municipality to construct a bus stand for the purpose of public in a portion of Vaiyapuri Kanmoi (Tank). It was very stoutly opposed by the ryots, who are the beneficiaries of the said tank. Such an action of the Municipality was challenged by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.10172 of 1992. It was contended in the said writ petition that Vaiyapuri Kanmoi being an irrigation sources for ayacuts, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipality to establish a bus stand on the said land. This Court granted an interim order of injunction and thus, the proposal was temporarily kept in abeyance. While so, the District Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and other officials, in the presence of the local Member of Parliament, held a meeting with the ryots, in which, on 12.10.1994 the ryots agreed that without any disturbance to the storage of water in the said kanmoi, the Municipality can occupy an extent of 5.25 acres of land for the purpose of establishing the bus stand. Based on the said understanding between the parties, the miscellaneous petitions in the main writ petition were disposed of by order dated 22.04.1997, wherein, this Court directed as follows:

"Having regard to their submission, I consider it just and proper to permit the Municipality to proceed with the work of expanding the Bus stand, subject to the condition that area to be used for such expansion in the tank shall not exceed 5.25 acres on any account. The respondents are also directed to immediately initiate steps to evict persons who have encroached on the portion of the tank bed."

The main writ petition came up for final hearing on 17.11.1998, on which date this Court issued the following order.

"4.The learned Govt. Advocate states that in pursuance of the said order dated 22.4.1997, 50% of the unauthorised occupants have been evicted and the Government is taking steps to evict the remaining unauthorised occupants.

5.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is suffice to record the statement of the learned Govt. Advocate and to direct the respondents to complete evictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS(Madurai Bench)D.Murugesan & S.Nagamuthu JJUppliyanthittu Kamarajar Nagar etc. Association, etc. v. District Collector, Dindigul District, & Ors. etc.,W.P. (MD)No.7440 of 2009 etc. dtd. 22.12.2009

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
(Madurai Bench)
D.Murugesan & S.Nagamuthu JJ
Uppliyanthittu Kamarajar Nagar etc. Association, etc. v. District Collector, Dindigul District, & Ors. etc.,
W.P. (MD)No.7440 of 2009 etc. dtd. 22.12.2009