Encroachment on water bodies is impermissible and does not confer rights even during the pendency of applications for usage.

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Writ on hand has been instituted challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 22.08.2025.

2. Petitioner is running a couching centre in his patta land. He has encroached upon water body in Survey No.65 at Poonjeri Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu, which is classified as ‘Vannan Kuttai’. Extend of water body is 0.46.0 hectares. Show cause notice was issued for removal of encroachment. Petitioner approached this Court challenging the said notice, and this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanations, which is to be considered on merits. The original authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of assignment of the water body. Petitioner preferred a representation before the Commissioner of Land Administration. Commissioner conducted a detailed enquiry by affording opportunity to all the parties. Petitioner participated in the enquiry and defended their case. The findings of the Commissioner in order dated

22.08.2025 is as extracted hereunder, Findings:-

1. The Revision Petitioner themselves have admitted that they are in possession of S.No.65, classified as Vannan Kuttai & S.No.54(A), classified as Kuttai.

2. The petitioner has encroached the water body and Erected construction such as Statues, Artificial water fall fountain and structures etc.

3. Towards the query on the aegis of remitting the Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R.) fund, the petitioner has replied that they do not receive and are in possession of any written orders from Collector or Government. The random suo-motu act of the petitioner in remitting C.S.R. fund without any authentic order will not bind the Government.

4. Since the petitioner themselves has stated that they have remitted an amount for maintaining the impugned land under C.S.R. Scheme, the petitioner's counsel was directed during the hearing to submit physical documents to substantiate their remittance claim through relevant order, whereas the counsel for the revision petitioner replied that there is no such order received neither from the District Collector, Chengalpattu nor from Government to remit such amount or permitting them to construct permanent structures. As such, the above act will not bind the Government to have a leniency towards the petitioner for their illegal act of encroaching the objectionable water body by way of construction of structures.

5. Further, it is also contended during hearing the revision petitioner seems to have confessed that apart from this S.No.65 they are also in possession of S.No.54A a Kuttai Poramboke and requested for maintaining it.

3. Commissioner relied on the judgments of this Court regarding encroachment in water body, made a conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for any relief, and consequently revision petition was rejected. Findings of the Commissioner, Land Administration would indicate that petitioner themselves have admitted that they are in possession of Survey No.65 classified as ‘Vannan Kuttai’ and Survey No.54(A) classified as ‘Kuttai’. Even before this Court, petitioner has not disputed the said fact. Only contention of the petitioner is that they have submitted an application seeking permission for usage of the said portion of the water body. During pendency of the application, enforcement actions have been initiated. Mere submission of the application or pendency would not confer any right to secure any relief from the hands of this Court, in view of the fact that petitioner admittedly is an encroacher in a water body. Commissioner also confirmed the order of the District Colle