Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V.K. Jayarathinam & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 3035 to 3038 of 2014
Decided On : 29-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Asokan
The encroachment of water bodies infringes the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the state has a duty to protect water bodies for the welfare of the public.
Headnote:
Water Bodies Encroachment - Fundamental Rights - Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, Article 21 of the Constitution of India - [WATER BODIES ENCROACHMENT] - [Fundamental Rights] - [Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, Article 21]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, in possession of government poramboke land, sought grant of patta under the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The authorities' refusal led to the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were encroaching on water bodies, which infringed the fundamental rights of citizens. It emphasized the importance of protecting water bodies and resources for the welfare of the public.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of patta grant for encroached government poramboke land and the subsequent writ petitions seeking mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that encroachment of water bodies infringes the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the duty of the state to protect water bodies and the corresponding duty of citizens to safeguard public property.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to evict all encroachments in water bodies, deny flood relief funds to encroachers, and take disciplinary actions against negligent officials. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs.
Mahatma Gandhi said, “there is no human institution but has its dangers. The greater the institution the greater the chances of abuse. Democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to be greatly abused. The remedy, therefore, is not avoidance of democracy, but reduction of possibility of abuse to a minimum”.
2. “The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart. The spirit of democracy cannot be superimposed from the outside. It must come from within”.
3. Dr. Ambedkar said, “I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indians last and nothing else but Indians”.
4. The lis on hand is one such case where few greedy people are infringing the rights of the citizen at large. This Court has made an attempt to minimise the infringement and damage caused on account of the greediness of few men. Equal protection of the fundamental rights of all other citizen, in general, is also a constitutional duty of the Constitutional Courts. If any infringement causes in violation of the fundamental rights of other citizen at large, then the Court must ensure that the social justice, equality of rights of all citizens are protected.
5. This being the constitutional mandate, this Court is not shy in bringing about the fact that the violations and more specifically, the encroachments in water bodies are slowly increasing in our great Nation. Encroachment is an offence and infringement of other's rights. But encroachment in water bodies and natural water resources are greater and serious offences, wherein stringent actions and protection of such water bodies are also imminent and highly warranted.
6. Thus, this Court is duty bound to take an attempt to ensure that the Executives/Administrators of the State are upholding the constitutional perspectives by maintaining the ecological balances and maintain the water bodies and water resources in the State, so as to protect the human lives in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the constitutional perspectives and the rights ensured to the citizens of this great Nation.
7. The facts in respect of these writ petitions are as follows:
W.P. No. 3035 of 2014
It is contended that the writ petitioner is a retired employee from TCMPFLID/AAUIN in 2011, and now he is a pensioner. The petitioner is in occupation of a small piece of land to an extent of 680 sq.ft. comprised in T.S.No.113, Block No.16, of Ayanavaram Village of Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District. The petitioner is residing in the same premises bearing Door No.2B/13B Kulakarai Lane, P.E. Koil Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023 comprised in T.S.No.113, Block No.16, of Ayanavaram Village of Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petitioner is in possession of the property for the past 40 years continuously. As per the revenue records, the land comprised in T.S.No.113, Block No.16 of Ayanavaram Village of Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District is a Government Poramboke land. However, it is contended that the Government of Tamil Nadu has recognised their residential status and issued Ration Card, Voter ID and providing Electricity connection etc., in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is paying the property tax also. This being the factum of the case, the writ petitioner claims which he is entitled for grant of patta in respect of the land and the portion of the building under his occupation.
W.P. No. 3036 of 2014
8. It is contended that the writ petitioner is a retired Railway and now he is a pensioner. The petitioner is in occupation of a small piece of land to an extent of 640 sq.ft. comprised in T.S.No.113, Block No.16, of Ayanavaram Village of Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chen
