Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
Venkatasubramani - Petitioner
Versus
District Collector, Nilgris and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.3860 to 3865 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.4543 to 4548 of 2004 And W.M.P.Nos.27424, 24864, 26120, 29874, 25247 & 24913 of 2018
Decided On : 11-01-2019
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Ravindran for M/s. A.V.Bharathi
For the Respondent: M/s. R.Janaki Additional Government Pleader
Encroachment is a social evil and it causes infringement of rights of all other citizens. The authorities competent must be vigilant over the public lands, water bodies and water resources.
Headnote:
LAND ENCROACHMENT - NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE TAMIL NADU LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT, 1905 - WRIT PETITIONS CHALLENGING THE NOTICES - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RAISED AND THE FINDINGS - ISSUES - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT: 1. Encroachment is a social evil. Encroachments causes infringement of rights of all other citizen. 2. Encroachment create a bad precedent in the mind of the people that no action will be taken in the event of encroaching the public land. 3. Thus, the authorities competent must be vigilant over the public lands, water bodies and water resources.
Fact of the Case:
Notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 are under challenge in these writ petitions. The writ petitions were listed for hearing on 08.01.2019. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners even before calling the matter, made an endorsement in the case bundles that “In this case nothing survives hence the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw”. When the matter was called, at that point of time, the learned Additional Government Pleader raised an objection that the endorsements made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that “nothing survives” is incorrect. The petitioners are the encroachers and still they are continuing their business in the encroached land.
Finding of the Court:
Considering the pleadings and counter pleadings raised by the respective parties to the lis on hand, this Court is of an opinion that the public interest and the rights of all other citizen in general are infringed on account of such encroachments in the Bus stand area and as well as in the main Road of Mettupalayam-Coonoor-Udhagamandalam. As narrated in the counter affidavit, undoubtedly, the population in Coonoor have considerably increased. Apart from the permanent residents of Coonoor Municipality in flow of Tourists are also high, especially during peak seasons. Coonoor and Udhagamandalam are Tourists attraction places, wherein large number of Tourists are visiting the place. Providing adequate infrastructure Road facilities, Bus stand are the constitutional mandate of the State. In the event of allowing encroachments in such sensitive areas like Bus stand and main roads, mainly in hilly areas, it is very difficult for the commuters to use the road peacefully and the traffic in flow also would be affected.
Issues: 1. Whether the notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 are valid? 2. Whether the petitioners are encroachers? 3. Whether the authorities are duty-bound to protect the public lands, water bodies and water resources?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Encroachment is a social evil and it causes infringement of rights of all other citizens. 2. Encroachment creates a bad precedent in the mind of the people that no action will be taken in the event of encroaching the public land. 3. The authorities competent must be vigilant over the public lands, water bodies and water resources. 4. The State is duty-bound to protect the public lands, water bodies and water resources.
Final Decision: 1. The notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 are valid. 2. The petitioners are encroachers. 3. The authorities are duty-bound to protect the public lands, water bodies and water resources. 4. The writ petitions are dismissed.
The Notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 are under challenge in these writ petitions.
2. The writ petitions were listed for hearing on 08.01.2019. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners even before calling the matter, made an endorsement in the case bundles that “In this case nothing survives hence the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw”. When the matter was called, at that point of time, the learned Additional Government Pleader raised an objection that the endorsements made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that “nothing survives” is incorrect. The petitioners are the encroachers and still they are continuing their business in the encroached land.
3. Hearing the submission, this Court again posted the matters on 09.01.2019 for the purpose of hearing the petitioners. On 09.01.2019, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel for the writ petitioners requested for a long adjournment. This Court declined the request by stating that it is an encroachment matter and the petitioners are continuing in encroachment for the past 14 years pursuant to the interim order of this Court and the writ petitions are also of the year 2004 and pending for the past 14 years. However, in order to provide opportunity to the writ petitioners, the matter is directed to be listed for hearing on 10.01.2019 and on 11.01.2019.
The Preliminary objections raised and the findings:-
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 11.01.2019, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner filed an additional affidavit of Mr.N.Moorthy (Writ petitioner in W.P.No.3862 of 2004). The affidavit states that the lease was granted in favour of the writ petitioners by the competent authorities and even after the lease period was over, the petitioner was regularly paying the amount and the respondents are also collecting the lease amount deposited by the writ petitioners. The petitioners have approached the respondents seeking further renewal of the lease and the request is pending with the authorities. However, no decision has been taken. It is further stated that subsequent renewal of lease during the year 2010, expired during the year 2013 and the writ petitions are filed challenging the notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act dated 03.02.2004 and therefore, the writ petitions became infructuous.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that admittedly, the lease period expired during the year 2013. However, the authorities had not taken any action pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, after the expiry of the lease period during the year 2013. For the past about 5 years, the writ petitioners are continuing only by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court in the present writ petitions. If at all, the writ petitioners are of the opinion that the writ petitions became infructuous, they would have withdrawn the writ petitions well during the year 2013 itself. Contrarily, the petitioners have kept the writ petitions pending for the past about 14 years and now attempting to withdraw with some ill motive to continue in the premises, which is a Government land, one way or other. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made an endorsement in order to avoid the eviction proceedings, wherein the writ petitioners are continuing without any lease or permission from the competent authorities. Grant of lease in such sensitive areas by the competent authorities itself is an illegality. However, the lease was granted under forced circumstances by the competent authorities. The original notice issued during the year 1993 was challenged by the writ petitioners in number of cases. Suits were also filed and at one point of time, during the year 1998, the authorities granted lease for a period of 3 years. The petitioners had not followed the lease conditions also, and thereafter, the petitioners had prolonged the l
