Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way dispossessing the members of the petitioner's association in respect of their dwelling houses to an extent of 200 feet to 500 feet comprised in Survey No.1203/1 and 1203/2, Palani Vilage & Taluk, Dindigul District and consequentially to direct the 2nd respondent to grant patta to the members of the petitioner association in respect of the dwelling houses in the light of the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.20894/05/C2, dated Nil-10-2006 and also taking into account the resolution passed by the 4th respondent in Resolution No.269, dated 30.04.2007 and in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30-12-2006.
W.P.(MD)No.7552/2009:
Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way dispossessing the petitioners association in respect of their dwelling houses to an extent of 200 feet to 500 feet comprised in Survey No.836/1A, Palani Vilage & Taluk, Dindigul District and consequentially to direct the 2nd respondent to grant patta to the petitioners in respect of their dwelling houses in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30-12-2006.
Cont.P.(MD)No.302/2009:
Petition under
Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to issue summons to the Respondent for the wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.3679 of 2008, dated 21.04.2008 and to punish the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan in both the WPs. ^For Respondents ... Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, in both the WPs & Spl.Govt.Pleader. Cont.Petn. For Petitioner in ... Mr.V.Karnan Cont.Petn. :COMMON ORDER S.NAGAMUTHU,J
The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7440 of 2009 is an Association known as "Uppliyanthittu Kamarajar Nagar Residents Welfare Association". Its members are the encroachers in Survey No.1203/1 and 1203/2 of Palani Village, Dindigul District, which has been classified as a 'tank poramboke', wherein Sirunaickenkulam Tank is located. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.7552 of 2009 are the encroachers in Survey No.836/1A1 of Palani Village, wherein Vaiyapuri Tank is located.
2.According to the writ petitioners, these encroachers have been in possession of the respective occupations for more than two decades. They have constructed pucca houses, for which basic amenities like drinking water facility, electricity service connection, road, pathway, etc. have been provided. They have also made representations to the Government to grant patta for their respective occupation, as per G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006. They claim that the local Municipality has passed a Resolution on 30.04.2007 recommending to the Government to grant such pattas to the encroachers. The District Collector has also made a similar recommendation, it is stated. It is further stated that it is under the consideration of the District Committee constituted for the said purpose to find out the feasibility of granting patta to the encroachers. While that be so, according to the petitioners, attempt is now made by the respondents to remove them from their respective encroachment. With the said grievance, they have come forward with these writ petitions seeking appropriate relief.
3.The case has got its own chequered history. Admittedly, Vaiyapuri and Sirunaicken Tanks are irrigation tanks and there are registered ayacuts which are enjoying the benefit of irrigation from these two tanks. During the year 1992, an attempt was made by the local Municipality to construct a bus stand for the purpose of public in a portion of Vaiyapuri Kanmoi (Tank). It was very stoutly opposed by the ryots, who are the beneficiaries of the said tank. Such an action of the Municipality was challenged by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.10172 of 1992. It was contended in the said writ petition that Vaiyapuri Kanmoi being an irrigation sources for ayacuts, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipality to establish a bus stand on the said land. This Court granted an interim order of injunction and thus, the proposal was temporarily kept in abeyance. While so, the District Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and other officials, in the presence of the local Member of Parliament, held a meeting with the ryots, in which, on 12.10.1994 the ryots agreed that without any disturbance to the storage of water in the said kanmoi, the Municipality can occupy an extent of 5.25 acres of land for the purpose of establishing the bus stand. Based on the said understanding between the parties, the miscellaneous petitions in the main writ petition were disposed of by order dated 22.04.1997, wherein, this Court directed as follows:
"Having regard to their submission, I consider it just and proper to permit the Municipality to proceed with the work of expanding the Bus stand, subject to the condition that area to be used for such expansion in the tank shall not exceed 5.25 acres on any account. The respondents are also directed to immediately initiate steps to evict persons who have encroached on the portion of the tank bed."
The main writ petition came up for final hearing on 17.11.1998, on which date this Court issued the following order.
"4.The learned Govt.Advocate states that in pursuance of the said order dated 22.4.1997, 50% of the unauthorised occupants have been evicted and the Government is taking steps to evict the remaining unauthorised occupants.
5.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is suffice to record the statement of the learned Govt.Advocate and to direct the respondents to complete eviction proceedings expeditiously, of course, by following due procedure of law."
Despite such an undertaking given and the consequential direction issued by this Court, steps were not obviously taken for evicting the encroachers. However, the encroachers, including the petitioners, in turn, made several representations to the Government, including the District Collector, to regularise their respective occupation by granting patta. It appears that the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector and the Municipality have all given proposals to the Government for grant of patta to the encroachers. This has been done, unmindful of the earlier undertaking given for eviction and the direction issued by this Court.
4.In those circumstances, the ayacutthars, who were the petitioners in the earlier writ petition, filed W.P.(MD)No.3679 of 2008 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents, namely the District Collector and the Public Works Department officials, to consider and pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner's Association on 28.08.2007. The said writ petition was filed by Palani Vaiyapurai Kalvai Pasana Karaipathu Puravu Farmer's Association. By order dated 21.04.2008, a Division Bench of this Court directed the District Collector to consider the said representation, wherein the said Association had requested to implement the order passed by this Court earlier and to pass appropriate orders. The grievance of the said association is that even the said order, dated 21.04.2008, has not been complied with by the District Collector. Therefore, Palani Vaiyapurai Kalvai Pasana Karaipathu Puravu Farmer's Association has come up with Contempt Petition No.302 of 2009. The same is also tagged with the writ petitions.
5.The above two writ petitions and the contempt petition are disposed of by means of a common order, since common issues are involved.
6.Learned counsel Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions, would submit that the encroachers are poor and downtrodden people, who do not find any other place to reside. He would further submit that since they have been in occupation for about 20 years and in view of the fact that the authorities like Municipality and the Revenue have submitted a proposal to the Government and since it is the policy of the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006, to grant patta to the encroaches, who are landless, the action of the respondents now to dispossess the petitioners is not at all sustainable. He would further submit that the area which is in the occupation of the encroachers is not a water logging area and the same can never be used for irrigation purposes. He would further submit that the encroachments have not reduced the storage capacity of the tank and therefore there can be no impediment for the Government to grant patta to these poor people. He would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Asson. v. State of T.N., reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 1425, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that a duty is cast on the State to protect the natural resources and to prevent ecological imbalances and at the same time, the State is also required to pursue the policy of sustainable development. It is also held that there cannot be a general rule of law that irrespective of the question as to whether the land in question is required for any public purpose or not, there should be eviction. However, it does not mean that all encroachments should be regularized or encouraged. But, if the State Government takes a conscious decision to regularize certain encroachments, which have continued for a pretty long period after the appropriate authority comes to the conclusion that such a land is not required for any public purpose or for the State, it cannot be said that such policy of the Government is per se arbitrary or illegal.
7.Relying on the above principles stated by the Division Bench, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that in the case on hand, since the Government has taken a policy decision to grant patta for the encroachers, if the encroachment has been in vogue for 10 years and also in view of the fact that the local Municipality and the Revenue Authorities have got no objection for grant of patta to the petitioners, such a policy decision cannot be gone into by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petitions are to be granted.
8.In the report submitted by the District Collector, Dindigul, it is stated that insofar as the encroachers are concerned, since they have been in occupation for more than two decades and since there is no alternative site for providing house-sites to these encroachers, it has to be necessarily regularised in order to maintain the law and order and to protect livelihood of these downtrodden poor people. The report further refers to the resolution passed by the Municipality in the year 2007. It is further stated that since these lands are situated in the south-east portion of the tank and naturally it is an elevated area and since the character of the tank has been changed and as such water cannot be stored in the above area, appropriate proposal has been made to the Government. At last, it is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12..2006, the matter has been referred to the District Level Committee, constituted exclusively for the purpose of implementation of the said G.O., and the same is under the consideration of the said Committee.
9.Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the matter may be left to the consideration of the Committee which will duly go into the issues and make appropriate recommendation to the Government, either to grant patta to these encroachers or not. Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that in view of the same, appropriate orders may be passed in these writ petitions.
10.But, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the contempt petition would submit that the authorities like Revenue and Municipality have, with an ulterior motive, allowed these encroachers to occupy major part of the tanks which are the only irrigation source for cultivation of their ayacut lands. Though, according to the learned counsel, a legal fight is going on from the year 1992 to safeguard these water bodies and to restore their original position so as to see that there is no disturbance to the irrigation of ayacuts, the respondents in the writ petitions have not taken appropriate action despite the fact that they gave an assurance before this Court in the earlier writ petition to evict the remaining encroachers and despite appropriate directions issued by this Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the stand taken by the District Collector now before this Court stating that the matter is being considered for the purpose of granting patta to the encroachers would be grossly a violence to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10173/1992 and W.P.(MD)No.3679 of 2008 and thus, the District Collector has committed a serious contempt of the order of this Court warranting appropriate punishment.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt petition would take us through the report submitted by the District Collector to substantiate his contention that there is absolutely collusion between the Revenue Authorities, more particularly the District Collector and the Municipal authorities, with the encroachers. He would further submit that despite all these legal proceedings going on from the year 1992, the Municipality has chosen to lay roads across the tanks to provide other amenities like drinking water, electricity service connection, pathway, etc. and thus the Municipality has also committed serious contempt. He would further submit that the ayacutdars are also poor agriculturists whose only avocation is agriculture and if the storage capacity of these two tanks are reduced considerably, without removing these encroachments, it would seriously affect the agricultural operations and therefore, according to him, the contemners may be punished as per law and both the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition need not be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt petition would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and Others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 496 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in L.Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2005(4) CTC 1.
12.We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully.
13.At the outset, we would like to state that agriculture is the lifeline of the country, since more than 65% of the Indians are involved in the agriculture sector.. Historically, irrigation has played a major role in poverty alleviation by providing food, security, protection against famine and expanded opportunities for employment, both on and off the farm. Development of irrigated agriculture has been a major engine for economic growth and poverty reduction.
14.In recent times, we have seen that the growing scarcity and competition for water stands as a major threat to future advancement in poverty alleviation. It is needless to say that food production is likely to be obviously affected, if our irrigation resources are not preserved. Research studies show that between 1960s and 1990s, the real food grain prices fell drastically by 50% and the said decline was, but not entirely, due to the impact of the so-called Green Revolution in this country. The next major impact of irrigation is in the employment generated both on and off the farm. Landless labourers and marginal farmers are the great beneficiaries of the employment developed by irrigation in the country. We have also seen that when irrigation fails in an area, landless workers in the said area slowly migrate to the nearby rain-fed villages where there is employment opportunity and it also happens that they move out for a different employment. It is true that our country has shown formidable development in the other sectors like industry, software, etc. where more employment opportunities are generated. That is not the answer to the sufferings of the agricultural labourers and marginal farmers. To protect the irrigation facilities and to ensure the livelihood for these poor people, is also one of the major challenges of the Governments. This right of these poor and downtrodden people, who are involved in agricultural sector, is also a part of right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which needs to be preserved. It is needless to say that every endeavour should, therefore, be taken by the Government to ensure that the irrigation sources are in no manner disturbed or reduced by any agency or individual.
15.Apart from such fundamental right of these farmers and agricultural labourers in the agricultural sector, such water bodies are mainly responsible for environment protection and pollution control. Lakes in any urban region are ecological security zones and true indicators of sustainable urban development. Water is a prime natural resource, a basic human need and a precious national asset. In one of the couplets on rain, saint Thiruvalluvar 2000 years ago, wrote:
"When water fails, functions of nature cease, you say; they When rain fails, no men can walk in duty's ordered way"
meaning thereby, if it be said that the duties of life can not be discharged by any person without water, so, without rain there cannot be the flowing of water. In the words of Mr. Henry David Thoreau, an American author, naturalist, historian and philosopher:
"A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth's eye looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature. The fluviatile trees next to the shore are slender eyelashes which fringe it, and the wooded hills and cliffs are its overhanging brows"
Having known the necessity of natural water resources, Governments, both Central and States, have been formulating policies by taking various measures to protect the same.
16. Having regard to the importance of preservation of these water sources, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 496], in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment, has held as follows:
"13.It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. they maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.
14.For the aforementioned reasons, we set aise the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated 25-2-1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on 12-3-1999. Consequently, Respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted to them, within six months from today. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If Respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period the official respondents i.e. Respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. The State including Respondents 11 to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the environment in regard to which this Court has repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must begin at the grass-root level if they were to become the nation's pride."
17.Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in L.Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 2005 (4) CTC 1, wherein, after referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench has ultimately in paragraph 14 has observed as follows. "14.Therefore, we direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary legal steps to remove the alleged encroachments made by the respondents 6 to 12 as well as the petitioner over Odai Poramboke in Iyan Punjai Survey No.100/1 at No.247, Tatchur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District measuring 5 acres and 70 cents. Inasmuch as this writ petition has come before us by way of a public interest litigation, we take this opportunity to direct the State Government to identify all such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever illegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the relevant provisions of law for restoring such natural water storage resources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its original position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water shortage is ameliorated."
The Division Bench has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India - 1997 (3) SCC 715, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The "Precautionary Principle" makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environment degradation. We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes."
18.From all the above, it could be easily perceived that protecting the water resources, more particularly irrigation tanks, should be the paramount consideration of the Government. As we have already stated, it not only protects the right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the agricultural labourers and farmers, who are involved in the agricultural sector, it also protects the environment which needs to be protected for the well being of the entire mankind. Therefore, there can be no second opinion that the encroachments in the water resources involved in these writ petitions are to be necessarily removed by the authorities and their original position should be restored.
19.Now, coming to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, though it is true, as is pointed by him, it is the bounden duty of the Government to provide house-sites for these poor landless citizens, who are the encroachers, on that score, we cannot allow the encroachers to occupy tanks so as to reduce the storage capacity of these tanks and consequentially to deplete the irrigation facilities. In the report of the District Collector, it is stated that there are no other suitable places in Palani Municipality Limits to rehabilitate these encroachers. The District Collector has further stated in the report that with a view to maintain law and order, without any problem, the encroachers are to be allowed to occupy. This stand of the District Collector cannot be appreciated at all. As we have already stated, though it is the right of these encroachers to seek the Government to rehabilitate them, as the same is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, such a right cannot be extended to the level of encroaching upon the water sources. Therefore, on the ground that there are no other alternative sites available in Palani Municipality Limits and on the ground that these encroachers have been living there for more than two decades and on the ground that there is likelihood of law and order problem, the encroachers cannot be allowed to continue. It is for the District Administration to see that the encroachers are removed and at the same time, these landless poor are rehabilitated appropriately.
20.From the records it could be seen that though legal fight to remove the encroachments and to prevent fresh encroachments is going on from the year 1992 onwards, curiously, the District Administration and the Municipal Authorities have allowed encroachments being made step by step and slowly, in a phased manner, by many people and as of now there are 511 houses as encroachments. We wonder as to how the municipality could provide road across these water sources and other facilities like electricity, drinking water, etc. These acts of the District Administration and the municipality alone, in our view, have encouraged these encroachers to squat upon these water resources. Had effective steps been taken to remove the encroachments even when they were made initially, further encroachments could have been avoided and all these hardships, which the District Administration is now placing before this Court would not have arisen. Therefore, for their failure to protect the water resources and for their failure to prevent encroachments, the authorities have to blame themselves.
21.Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.M.Ajmal Khan would further submit that the areas where the houses are located are elevated areas and absolutely there is no chance for storage of water. Similar stand has been taken in the report of the District Collector. For a moment, we are not prepared to agree with the said statement. It may be true that because of the encroachments and construction of houses these areas have become elevated and so there is no water logging as of now. It does not mean that by de-silting, the original position could not be restored.
22.At this juncture, we may have to refer to the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.10137 of 1992, wherein it was reported to the Court by the District Administration, through the learned Government Advocate, as follows:
"4.The learned Govt.Advocate states that in pursuance of the said order dated 22.4.1997, 50% of the unauthorised occupants have been evicted and the Government is taking steps to evict the remaining unauthorised occupants."
From the above statement made, it could be seen that even in the year 1998, it was stated that 50% of the unauthorized occupants have already been evicted. The further direction issued by this Court in paragraph 5 of the order is as follows:
"5.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is suffice to record the statement of the learned Govt.Advocate and to direct the respondents to complete eviction proceedings expeditiously, of course, by following due procedure of law."
This direction has not been so far complied with by the respondents from 1998 onwards. Instead, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt petition, the respondents have been going on providing all facilities to these encroachers so as to encourage their encroachments. Though there are materials to pursue further in the contempt petition against the respondents, we do not propose to do so, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as we have narrated above, on the fond hope that atleast the order which we presently pass would be complied with.
23.Now, coming to the proposal pending with the District Level Committee for grant of patta, in view of G.O.Ms.No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006, we are of the view that no such patta could be granted in respect of these lands to any individual. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners of a Division Bench of this Court in Sivakasi Tax Payers Association vs. State of T.N. - (2005) 5 MLJ 1425, has no application to the facts of the present case at all. That was a case where a tank, which was not an irrigation tank and which had become unfit for storage of water for years, was considered for the purpose of grant of patta and accordingly patta was granted. When the said G.O. was challenged, in those circumstances, the Division Bench had to hold that this Court cannot interfere with such a policy decision. But, the facts are totally distinguishable in our case, since, we are dealing with water resources for irrigation. To understand the said judgment, it would be worthwhile to extract paragraph 7.4 and 28 to 31.
"7.4. The fact that there has been no surplus flow of water from the tank for the past 20 years due to inadequate rain and failure of monsoon has also been highlighted and it has been stated that Siru Kulam tank receives only rain water from the surrounding dry lands and such tank is not an irrigation tank and it has no ayacut area and the surrounding area has already been developed as built up portion. The channel that starts from Railway Feeder Road to Odai Street never got water supply from Siru Kulam and it serves as sewage channel for the nearby residents. It has been stated that though there was large number of encroachments in the area, such encroachments have not been considered for regularization under this G.O., except T.S.No.33 in Block 8, since those encroachments are blocking the supply channel which would lead to submergence of the nearby areas. T.S.No.33 in Block 8 is predominantly Mayanam Poramboke and partly Odai and is not at all used as Mayanam as it was in the midst of the thickly populated town area and the Municipality has a separate Mayanam. Various contentions raised regarding the invalidity of the G.O., on the ground that the G.O. is contrary to the various directions contained in the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court have been refuted.
28. We do not think it may be laid down as a matter of general principle of law that irrespective of the question as to whether the land in question is required for any public purpose or not, there should be eviction. it should not be understood for a moment that we are suggesting that all encroachments should be regularized or encouraged. But, if the State Government takes a conscious decision to regularize certain encroachments, which have continued for a pretty long period after the appropriate authority comes to a conclusion that such land is not required for any public purpose or for the State, can it be said that such policy is beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government. As a matter of fact, a person by remaining in adverse possession for more than 30 years acquires a right over such property. This is because of the statutory provisions contained in
Section 27 of the Limitation Act read with
Article 112 of the Limitation Act, where the land belongs to the State.
29.In the present case, the State Government has thought it fit to regularize the encroachment in respect of residences which are in existence for more than 10 years. In that sense it may be true that those persons had not yet perfected their title by adverse possession. However, if the State Government in its wisdom decides to confer right on such persons even though they were yet to acquire such right by prescription, it cannot be said that such policy is per se arbitrary.
30.However, whether such policy is arbitrary or not is required to be examined in the context of the duty of the State to protect environment and to protect the Society. The G.O. makes it amply clear that only where the environment is not affected in the sense that the area is not actually not in use as Eri (lake) or water source either natural or artificial and not required for any public use and for the use of the State, then only the property can be settled.
31.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that once the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act has come into force, without first identifying the tanks, the question of regularization of encroachment does not arise and only when such tanks or other water bodies are identified, the question of regularization of encroachment may arise and in view of such encroachment, the G.O. must be held to be inoperative."
24.A glance through the said judgment would make it ipso facto clear that in respect of an irrigation source, no patta can be granted even under the guise of a policy decision of the Government. The G.O.854 referred to by the writ petitioners has got no application to irrigation tanks. Therefore, the Committee, which is now considering the question of grant of patta to the writ petitioners, has got no jurisdiction to decide the same, as the said committee can consider grant of patta only in respect of lands or tanks, other than tanks over which the ayacutdars have got right of irrigation as grant of such patta in respect of irrigation tank, would substantially affect their livelihood. For these reasons, we are not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in these writ petitions. We may also observe that the earlier order of this Court directing the removal of encroachment must be complied with in all seriousness, within a period of six months from today.
25.Before parting with the case, we would like to say that administering an injection on a patient is painful to him, nevertheless, the patient has to bear the same, if the disease has to go. Likewise, removing these encroachers, who have been in occupation for more than two decades, is really painful but, the authorities have no other option to avoid to do so. We only expect that these encroachers, on their own, vacate their occupation, so that the irrigation tanks can be restored to their original position and we also expect the Government to rehabilitate these encroachers, in a suitable place, without any loss of time.
26.In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed and the contempt petition is closed with a liberty to the contempt petitioner to approach this Court again if the orders of this Court are not complied within the time stipulated in this order. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.7440 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.7552 of 2009 are dismissed. M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.7440/2009 is closed.
gb To:
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.
3.The Tahsilar, Palani Taluk, Palani,
4.The Commissioner, Palani Municipality, Dindigul District.
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resource Organization (WRO), Public Works Department, Varathamanathi Tank Division, Palani, Dindigul District.
6.Vasuki, I.A.S., District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.