The authority issuing eviction notices must also conduct the inquiry and issue final orders, as failure to adhere to principles of natural justice renders the process invalid.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

2. Issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

3. The petitioner is a temple. They want the encroachment in survey No.218 of A.Thekkur Village, Tirupattur Taluk to be cleared.

4. It is not in dispute that survey No.218 was originally classified as Sivan Kovil Oorani. The persons in encroachment of the land were sought to be evicted. They therefore filed W.P.No.59 of 2004 and the writ petition was dismissed only on 25.03.2008. It appears that the said order has become final and no challenge was mounted. Since no action was taken, the temple filed W.P.(MD) No.26690 of 2022 for evicting the encroachment. The writ petition was disposed of on 05.12.2022 in the following terms:-

“5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that this Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that encroachment on the water body is liable to be removed, we direct the respondents to remove the encroachment in S.No.218 i.e., water body, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Insofar as the second limb of the prayer for restoring the name of Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Nagara Sivan Kovil in revenue records in respect of S.No. 212/16 is concerned, we are not inclined to express any view or opinion and it is for the third respondent to take appropriate decision on the same.”

5. Questioning the same, some of the encroachers filed SLP(Civil)(D)No.2350 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP vide order dated 17.03.2023 in the following terms:-

“4. The petitioners would firstly contend that they were not arrayed as party in the writ proceeding. They would next argue that civil proceedings are pending over the concerned land and therefore the High Court should not have overlooked those in order to issue peremptory order for removal of encroachments.

5. Responding to the above, the respondent's counsel would refer to the proceedings in W.P No.59/2004 and the order dated 25.03.2008 to point out that the present petitioner was the Petitioner No.21 in the said proceeding and on a similar issue of encroachments, the High Court dismissed the petition by adverting to the fact the order for removal of the encroachment passed by the 1^st respondent on 26.12.2003 cannot to be said to be irregular or illegal. The Court also made it clear that the petitioners herein are at liberty to claim possessory title or seek alternate sites by approaching the concerned authorities.

6. We have considered the rival submissions. It is also noticed that adequate opportunities are ordered prior to removal of the encroachments. Additionally, Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 also provides for remedy to the affected persons both at the original level and also at the appellate level. It is also relevant to note that although the petitioners were not arrayed, a counsel appearing on their behalf had made submission before the High Court.

7. Taking all the aforesaid circumstances into account, we see no merit in the Special Leave Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. The proceedings for removal of the encroachments is however expected to be taken in accordance with law. All contentions are left open for the parties.”

6. Thereafter, the encroachers applied for reclassification of the land. According to them, since they are in possession of the same, classification of Oorani has to be deleted. With the afor