W.P.(MD)No.13221 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:24/06/2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

W.P(MD)No.13221 of 2022

and

W.M.P(MD)No.9392 of 2022

Charles

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

Dindigul District,

Dindigul.

2.The Block Development Officer,

(Village Panchayat),

Saanarpatti Village Panchayat Union),

Dindigul District.

3.The President,

T.Panjampatti Village Panchayat,

Saanarpatti Village Panchayat Union,

Dindigul District. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a

Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the

third respondent in his impugned order, dated 18.06.2022 and quash the same

as arbitrary and illegal.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.13221 of 2022

For Petitioner

:Mr.K.Baalasundharam

For Respondents :Mr.S.P.Maharajan,

Special Government Pleader

***

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

Heard Mr.K.Baalasundharam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. By consent of parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the

admission stage itself.

3. The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order, dated

18.06.2022, passed by the third respondent, in and by which, the petitioner was

directed to remove the encroachment made by him.

4. According to the petitioner, he is residing in T.Panjampatti Village,

Kosavapatti Post, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. It is further stated

that he is having patta lands. However, he was issued with a notice by the

President of the Panchayat namely, the third respondent herein, stating that in

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.13221 of 2022

the case of one Sahaya Raj, the Honourable Supreme Court has passed an order

directing to remove the encroachments made in the water bodies and therefore,

the petitioner has to remove the encroachment made by him, within seven days

from the date of receipt of the said order, otherwise, the encroachment will be

removed by the panchayat.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in

the impugned notice, not even the details of encroachment or the survey

number of the lands in which such encroachment is made by the petitioner, is

indicated and such a notice is not under any Statute.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first

respondent/District Collector, submitted that this Court has earlier in the case of

R.Gurusamy vs The Government of Tamil and others, in W.P.(MD)No.11825

of 2022, dated 15.06.2022, issued directions to remove the encroachments from

the water bodies following the survey being conducted. He further submitted

that the land in Survey No.488/2 is classified as 'kalam poromboke' and several

encroachments in the water bodies are reported and the land belongs to the

Government.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.13221 of 2022

7. In the case of R.Gurusamy vs The Government of Tamil and

others, in W.P.(MD)No.11825 of 2022, dated 15.06.2022, this Court has

observed as follows:

9.The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

T.S.Senthil Kumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in

2010 (3) MLJ 771, held that the encroachment should be

identified after conducting survey. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Madhav Rao Schindia v. Ramesh Jatav [(2006) 1 SCC 379] has

held that such survey to identify encroachment shall be done in the

presence of the persons, who are interested or the persons, who

are found to be encroachers. However, the respondents have not

taken care t