Authorities must act to remove unauthorized constructions on government lands despite prior injunctions, ensuring compliance with relevant regulations.

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The letter of Deputy Director, Sivagangai Panchayat Local Planing Authority to the Tahsildar, dated 31.08.2017 is under challenge in the writ proceedings.

2.The petitioner states that he served in the Indian Army and now settled in his village and doing agricultural activities. The land in S.No.292/1 is a Government land classified in the revenue records as “Sarkar manai Kaliyidam” ie., Government poramboke Natham. The said land has been used collectively by all the villagers for common purpose. The fourth respondent has encroached upon the said property and constructed a marriage hall in the name and style of “Udaiyar Mahal”. The building plan has been permitted illegally granted by the Panchayat President and no action has been taken by the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayat. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the subject property belongs to Soosaiyappar Temple. Therefore, the fourth respondent has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party in the present writ petition.

4.The learned Government Pleader would submit that the fourth respondent has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.14 of 2018 and obtained an order of permanent injunction. Thus, the authorities have not initiated the action.

5.A perusal of the judgment passed in O.S.No.14 of 2018, it is an ex-parte decree passed wherein the respondent, the District Collector, Sivagangai, has not even filed a written statement, no action has been taken by the District Collector and the Tahsildar either to prefer an appeal suit against the such judgment or to file a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and decide the issue on merits. Thus, the defendants in the suit as well as the Government Pleader who has not properly represented the Government case are responsible and accountable and the District Collector has to look into the matter and initiated appropriate action against all concerned.

6.Regarding the ex-parte decree of injunction, the same action contrary against the Statute, since it is not declaration of title of ownership and therefore, mere injunction would not prevent the competent authority under the special enactment to initiate action to remove the encroachment and to demolish the unauthorised building. Since it is an ex-parte decree of injunction, the same will not act against the said enactment, which confers the power of authority to remove the encroachers and to demolish the unauthorised construction.

7.As far as the Government Poramboke Natham Lands are concerned, the Government has bound to regulate the same in accordance with the Revenue Standing Orders 21. The Legal principles are settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case ofThe Tahsildar, Sankarapuram – vs- Mr.T.Elumalai, reported in2025:MHC:1238. The District Collector and the Tahsildar, Sivagangai, are bound to comply the legal principles settled in the case cited supra and resume to regulate the Grama Natham Land in terms of Revenue Standing Orders 21 and utilised the same for the public purpose of assigning the property for dwelling purpose to landless poor people. As per the procedure contemplated under the Revenue Standing Orders, commercial activities are impermissible in Natham land. In any event, the authorities are bound to act in accordance with law. The relevant Statutes are ensure that the encroachers are removed and unauthorised construction if any made in the Government Poramboke Natham lands are removed.

8.In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to verify the revenu