HC directs authorities to conduct proper survey, remove encroachment

It observes the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court have already held that any waterbody will have to be maintained as suchand the question of interfering with notices does not arise

Updated - September 13, 2023 06:21 am IST

Published - September 12, 2023 09:03 pm IST - MADURAI

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to take steps to remove the encroachments on a water canal in Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district. The court has also directed the authorities to conduct a proper survey in this regard.

The court was hearing the petition filed by Meharrunisha Begam of Ramanathapuram district. She purchased a site in 1998. It was said that the petitioner appeared to have encroached to an extent of 316 sq. mts. Venthoni vaikkal was running through the survey numbers. The petitioner challenged the notices issued to her.

The court was told that the government had issued a G.O. in 1995 alienating a portion of the canal in favour of Paramakudi Municipality. However, Paramakudi Municipality was mandated to use the alienated land only for drainage purposes. It was made clear that no building should be constructed on the alienated portion and that it was not used for any commercial purposes by the municipality. The State submitted that there was no proposal to issue patta in respect of the remaining extent of the water canal.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed that the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court had already held that any waterbody will have to be maintained as such. The court observed that the question of interfering with the notices does not arise. However, the court made it clear that the construction put up by the petitioner on her patta land shall not be touched.

It is seen from the records that apart from the petitioner, there were a number of other encroachments. The authorities were directed to conduct a proper survey and ensure that all the encroachments on the canal were removed as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner alone cannot be selectively targeted, the court observed and dismissed the petition.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.