The court emphasized the necessity for adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in eviction proceedings under the Tanks Act.

ORDER :

M.SUNDAR, J.

Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} is 'property classified as in Thiruninravur Village, Avadi Taluk, Thiruvallur District' {hereinafter 'said lake' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.

2. Mr.N.Sudharsan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners submits that said lake is comprised in S.No.301/1. We note this submission without expressing any view or opinion one way or the other. Main WP has been filed with a prayer to mandamus respondents i.e., forbear respondents from taking coercive action qua petitioners' dwelling houses in said lake. Learned counsel submits that writ petitioners were visited with notices in Form II under Rule 5(3) of 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007' {hereinafter 'Tanks Rules' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity} being notices dated 25.11.2024 and writ petitioners have responded to the notices by sending representations dated 02.12.2024.

3. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that writ petitioners are under pain of dispossession/eviction and therefore, the captioned WP has been filed.

4. Issue notice to respondents.

5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for all three respondents and submits, on instructions, that there are over 200 encroachers in said lake and therefore, afore-referred Form II notices have been published/issued.

6. Owing to the limited scope of the captioned WP, main WP was taken up in the Admission Board with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

7. As regards proceedings under 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' {hereinafter 'Tanks Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity}, we deem it appropriate to set out the same step by step in detail and the same is as follows:

(i) Tanks Act is a conditional legislation, received the assent on 22.05.2007, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 23.05.2007 and came into force on 01.10.2007;

(ii) Section 13 of Tanks Act deals with rule making power and it confers such powers on State Government;

(iii) In exercise of aforementioned rule making power under Section 13 of Tanks Act, the State Government has made a set of rules i.e., 'Tanks Rules' and Tanks Rules came into force on and from 01.10.2007;

(iv) Certain provisions of Tanks Act (inter alia Sections 4 to 10 of Tanks Act) were assailed in T.S.Senthil Kumar case {T.S.Sentil Kumar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 1347 } and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in and by an order dated 10.02.2010 upheld the vires;

(v) Thereafter, there was a reference to Full Bench (inter alia) as regards the question as to whether Tanks Act in any manner dilutes the observation in L.Krishnan case { L.Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2005 Madras 311 : (2005) 3 MLJ 363}. To be noted, in L.Krishnan case, directions were issued qua all natural water resources and removal of encroachment;

(vi) Aforementioned reference was answered by Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam case { T.K.Shanmugam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 9343 } (order dated 30.10.2015);

(vii) In T.K.Shanmugam case, Hon'ble Full Bench referred to T.S.Senthil Kumar case with approval, made it clear that Full Bench upholds the Tanks Act as in T.S.Senthil Kumar case providing for observance of principles of natural justice {NJP} within the Act. NJP provided for within the Act in T.S.Senthil Kumar case is by way of an adumbration vide sub-sub- paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph No.42 in T.S.Senthil Kumar case as reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 1347 which read as follows:

'42. In the result, we dispose of the writ petition in the same lines adopting the same method which the Supreme Court done in the two cases in Mysore v. J.V. Bhat (supra)