The need for the petitioner to submit documents to prove his right of possession and the respondent-authorities to pass orders on the reply/objection within a specified time.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in respect of his notice dated 20.11.2021 issued to the petitioner in Form-III under Rule 6 Sub-Rule (1) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007, relating to property comprised in Survey Number NIL, T.S.Number 117, Ward-D, Block-50, Zamin Pallavaram, Pallavaram, Chengalpattu District, of constructed house ad-measuring 40 Sq.M., to quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his subject property referred above.)

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, C.J.

1. By this Writ Petition, a challenge is made to the notice dated 20.11.2021 issued in Form-III under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007 [for brevity, "the Rules of 2007"].

2. The challenge to the notice has been made mainly on the ground that the lands in question belong to the petitioner and he is having valid title in proof thereof, yet ignoring the aforesaid, the notice in Form III was issued. The petitioner sent his reply/objection to the notice. However, no order on it has been passed. Since the respondents were pursuing action to remove the constructions, the petitioner is left with no option but to file the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given reference of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of T.S.Senthil Kumar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 771, and also a Larger Bench judgment in the case of T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2015 (8) MLJ 1 (FB). In the case of T.S.Senthil Kumar (supra), the Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 [for short, "the Act of 2007"] and Rules of 2007 was challenged. The provisions were held to be Constitutionally valid, but to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice, a direction was given to the effect that when the officer of the Public Works Department publishes the notice in Form-II in the Notice Boards of the Offices of the Village Administrative Officer, Village Panchayat Office and the Water Resources Organization, the notice shall also be issued to the alleged encroacher to the effect that the survey indicates that the place in his/her occupation is an encroachment and secondly, the notice in Form-III may be issued. It was further directed that the encroacher may give his/her objections relating to the classification of the land in his/her occupation and the nature of the encroachment within a period of two weeks. The authorities were directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, in the instant case, though the petitioner sent his reply/objection, no order has yet been passed. Thus, the prayer is made to either quash the notice in Form-III issued under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2007 or to direct the respondents to consider the reply/objection given by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is in the background that the petitioner has placed on record certain documents to show his title and it is not such a case where the petitioner failed to show his right to possess the land.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contested the present Writ Petition and submitted that as per the judgment in the case of T.S.Senthil Kumar (supra), the encroacher was required to give reply/objection to the notice in Form-III within two weeks, but, in the instant case, it was given after a lapse of five/six months and, therefore, a direction for consideration of the reply/objection may not be given, rather finding the petitioner to have encroached the land of water tank, liberty be given to the respo