The court emphasized the importance of protecting public lands and water bodies, and the need to evict encroachers under the relevant acts for public welfare.

1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to consider and rectify the error crept in the UDR anomaly by incorporating as “irrigation channel”, after replacing the word “foot path” in respect of S.Nos.764/11, 764/12 & 764/13 of Vellalur Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, in the light of the G.O.Ms.No:385, Revenue(General) Department, dated 17.08.2004, pursuant to the representation sent by the petitioner herein dated 10.04.2013, 04.09.2013 and 23.12.2013.

2. The leaned counsel for the writ petitioner forcibly contended that the “irrigation channel” is under encroachment and the agriculturists in that particular locality is unable to utilize the water channel for the purpose of irrigation as the same is under encroachment by few greedy men.

3. The petitioner states that the wet land comprised in S.No.764/C, S.No.766/A and 767/A of Vellalur Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, originally belonged to Ramasamy Chettiar, son of Mukkan Chettiyar, who in turn had sold the said property by way of a sale deed dated 18.05.1913 and registered as a Document in Doc.No.3648/1913 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar II, Coimbatore to and in favour of Saminatha Chettiyar, son of Chettiyappa Chettiar. Accordingly, the said Mr.Saminatha Chettiyar and his legal heirs have been continuously in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising crops and by paying kist/tax regularly till date, including the wet lands comprised in S.Nos.764/6 and 765, which also the petitioner and his family members have inherited from their ancestors. It is relevant to note that the Survey Numbers S.No.764/C, S.No.766/A and 767/A of Vellalur Village has been reclassified as S.Nos:764/5, 766 and 767 of Vellalur Village during Re-Survey and Re-Settlement in the year 1913.

4. The petitioner also states that adjacent to their lands is a channel poromboke which is situated in S.Nos.764/11, 764/12 and 764/13 of the same village and in the re-survey and re-settlement records of the year 1913, it was classified as Drainage(VARI). The said “irrigation Channel” has been in existence in the aforesaid survey numbers even before 1913 and hence it has been correctly classified in the re-survey and re-settlement records.

5. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that while updating Register(UDR records), the said Survey Nos.764/11, 764/12 and 764/13 were wrongly classified as “foot path” without any notice to the adjacent to the land owners by the revenue authorities inadvertently and without field verification. The petitioner states that on account of such wrong classification, the petitioner as well as the other agriculturists of that locality suffered and they are unable to utilize the water channel for the purpose of irrigation.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that on the northern side, there is a Temple and they have also encroached the portion of the Government land and they are also to be evicted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the water channel provided in that locality is to be made available for the usage of all the agriculturists of that locality for continuing their irrigation. Contrarily, there are many encroachments and even the Temple in that locality has encroached the Government land.

8. This Court is of an opinion that the encroachment is an evil and this Court cannot tolerate the encroachments of public lands by any person. The concept of social evil of encroachment may not know the colour and caste. However, such an evil is detrimental to the development of the society and for the welfare of the society at large. Thus, the concept of encroachment can never be permitted based on the other criterias. All the public lands are to be utilized for the public welfar