Encroachments on public water bodies are detrimental to environmental sustainability and must be removed by authorities regardless of the timeline of construction, provided that due process (survey and notice) is followed in accordance with the relevant local statutes.

O R D E R

(Made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.JOTHIRAMAN)

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows :-

The petitioner stated in her affidavit that the petitioner along with her sister Mehara Banu has purchased an extent of 11 cents & 353sq.ft vide Doc.No.1237 & 1238 of 1990 dated 19.03.1990 at Door No.175/A Ward No.44, Block No.8, Rabwah Manzil, Saramedu main road, Karumbukadai, Coimbatore and they have put up a superstructure on the said property. Though in the sale deeds vaikkal was shown as Southern boundary, there was no vaikkal in existence.

2. The petitioner and her sister put up construction on the property, the Corporation officials have not claimed that they encroached on the Vaikkal in TS.No.90. In fact, the petitioner and her sister constructed superstructure 33 years ago. It is stated that the petitioner had received a notice dated 03.01.2024 under Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 from the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner and her sister have constructed commercial complex on the Vaikkal situated in TS.No.84, 87 & 90 causing hindrance to the public transportation and caused threats to public hygiene and the encroachment has to be removed within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

3. According to the petitioner, the said notice was issued to the petitioner and her sister at the instigation of the adjacent owners viz., 8th respondent, Mohammed Ali and Sadhick.. On 10.01.2024, the petitioner and her sister submitted their reply to the notice dated 03.01.2024. It is further stated that assailing the aforesaid notice dated 03.01.2024, the petitioner filed WP.No.1057 of 2024. This Court by an order dated 12.01.2024 disposed of the said writ petition holding that before passing the final order, the authority concerned should consider the reply filed by the petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law.

4. It is further stated that when the surveyor had visited the property, the petitioner requested to measure the property to find out if there is any encroachment. However, the surveyor failed to do so and without taking any steps to measure the property, the surveyor informed the petitioner that orders will be passed by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent without appreciating the documents and revenue records submitted by the petitioner and without directing the respondents 3 to 6 to measure the property, had rendered a findings that the petitioner and her sister have made constructions encroaching on the vaikkal situated in TS.No.84, 87, 90 without any substantial proof for encroachment. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and the procedure followed by the respondent authorities is far removed from the course mandated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1988. The impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the material records submitted by the petitioner in support of her claim that there is no encroachment made by the petitioner.

6. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the 2nd respondent ought to have seen the vaikkal shown as one of the boundaries of the petitioner's property even at the time of purchase of the property and the said “vaikkal” was never in existence. even from the date of purchase. Further, the second respondent should have noticed that there is no vaikkal in existence in TS.No.84, 87 an