Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K.Lakshmanan - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Salem District and Ors - Respondent
W.P.No.32284 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.35237 of 2005
Decided on : 07-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.Vijendran
For the Respondents: M/s.R.Janaki Additional Government Pleader
Headnote:
Encroachment - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 6 - [Section 2(1)(c), Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, Article 48A, Article 51A(g)] - The judgment discusses the eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The court emphasizes the importance of protecting public lands, water bodies, and water resources, and the duty of the State to initiate action against encroachers. It also highlights the legal principles related to encroachment, criminal trespass, and protection of the environment under the Constitution of India and relevant statutes.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a challenge to an eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioner contends that the authorities are discriminatory in invoking the provisions of the Act and that an alternate land representation submitted by the petitioner has not been considered. The respondents argue that the notice is valid and that encroachment on water bodies cannot be tolerated.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the land in question is classified as 'Sakkilikuttai', a water body, and that the petitioner and others have encroached upon government poramboke lands. The court emphasizes the social and environmental impact of encroachment and the duty of the State to protect public lands and water bodies. It also highlights the need for uniform action against all encroachers and the importance of welfare schemes for the public.
Issues: The issues include the validity of the eviction notice, the discriminatory application of the Act, the consideration of an alternate land representation, and the impact of encroachment on public lands and water bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the principles of protecting public lands and water bodies, preventing discrimination in eviction actions, and upholding the duty of the State to implement welfare schemes for the public. The judgment also emphasizes the legal provisions related to encroachment, criminal trespass, and environmental protection under the Constitution and relevant statutes.
Final Decision: The court rejects the relief sought by the petitioner, upholds the validity of the eviction notice, and directs the authorities to evict all encroachers in government poramboke lands, water bodies, and water resources. It also orders a review meeting to identify encroachments and instructs the District Collector to initiate immediate action and issue suitable orders to protect public lands and water bodies. The Superintendent of Police is directed to provide adequate protection to officials for eviction actions.
1. The Eviction Notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that the authorities competent are picking and choosing the persons for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Thus, the actions of the respondents are discriminatory and they are allowing all such similar commercial centres in the very same locality, who all are also in occupation of the Government Poramboke lands, which is classified as “Sakkilikuttai”, which is a water body. Thus, the petitioner states that they are in occupation of a very small portion of the land for the purpose of living and in the event of allowing all other encroachers in that locality, the petitioner alone cannot be evicted by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.
3. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of providing an alternate land, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities competent on 08.09.2012 and the said representation is yet to be considered. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to challenge the very issuance of the notice.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the authorities have issued notice by following the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and there is no infirmity as such. This apart, the encroached portion of the Government land is classified as “Sakkilikuttai”, which is a water body and as per the judgments of this Court, there cannot be any encroachment in water bodies and water resources. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
5. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is of an opinion that admittedly, the land is classified as Poramboke called as “Sakkilikuttai”. The Tahsildar, Salem also filed a counter affidavit, clarifying that the total area of 0.89.5 Hec., an extent 0.34.5 Hec., of land has been encroached by one Thiru.Kandsamy, the father of the writ petitioner and 9 others by constructing houses, Middle School, Panchayat T.V.Room, Kaliyamman Koil, Ration shop, Public Toilet, Panchayat Road from North to South are all in existence in the suit properties. The area encroached by the petitioner and others up on the poramboke land should be evicted in accord to law.
6. Encroachment is a social evil. Encroachment infringes the rights of all other citizens residing in that particular locality. Encroachment affects the implementation of welfare schemes for the public at large. Encroachments creates discrimination amongst the citizen in violation of the Constitutional principles. Encroachments in public properties can never be tolerated. Public lands are meant for the usage of public at large for the welfare schemes and few greedy men can never be allowed to occupy the Government land for their personal gains and for unlawful enrichment. The constitutional principles and Ethos emphasis that public schemes are to be implemented for the welfare of the public at large by the State. Thus, it is duty mandatory on the part of the State to ensure that all the public properties are to be protected in the interest of public and to implement the welfare schemes for the usage of a common man. Thus, individual person can never be allowed to encroach upon the public land for their personal gains, which is not only against the constitutional principles, but infringes the constitutional rights of all other citizen and therefore, the State is bound to initiate action against all such encroachers, more specifically, water bodies, water resources,
