Encroachments on water bodies in disuse cannot be regularised

Voicing concern over 'rampant' encroachment of government land, a full bench of the Madras High Court has held that encroachments on water bodies cannot be allowed even if the latter are in disuse.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justices M Sathyanarayanan and T S Sivagnanam, gave the ruling on a PIL by a CPI-M functionary seeking regularisation of enroachment by several persons in lakes in two villages on the city outskirts and patta for the land.
Petitioner T K Shanmugam, Secretary of CPI(M) North Chennai district, had prayed for a direction to the authorities to grant patta (legal document for land ownership) and regularise the encroachments contending that the water bodies were no longer in use either for drinking water or irrigation purpose.

As there were conflicting past judgments by division benches on the issue, a reference was made to the three-judge full bench to decide the question wheter provisions of the state's Tanks Act in any manner dilutes the observations made by the Supreme Court on protection of water bodies.
Remitting the matter back, the full bench directed a division bench to dispose of the PIL seeking a direction to the Collectors of Chennai and Thiruvallur districts to grant patta and regularise the encroachments coming under water bodies in Menambedu and Korattur villages.
The petitioner had claimed that several families had been residing for more than 25 years in houses in the localities and out of around 3,400 houses, about 900 were served with the eviction notice by Public Works Department in October 2007.

He cited a December 30, 2006 Government Order (G.O) by Revenue Department, which was also upheld by a division bench, that encroachments on disused water bodies can be regularised.

The full bench said "we do not agree with the said observations (of the division bench), since the object of the enactments which have held the field from 1905 does not speak of any such exemption, rather the underlying principle was to preserve and protect water bodies."
Observing that encroachers are in fact trespassers into government property, it said default of revenue officials or collusion of official machinery with encroachers can hardly be a premium to justify encroachments.

The present scenario of rampant encroachment is on account of the failure of the Revenue Administration to protect government lands, the court said.
Criticising the government for issuing the G.O, it said the state being a trustee of these natural resources such as tanks, lakes etc has to necessarily act consistent with the nature of such trust.
The court said that in several cases the disuse of water bodies was man-made and there appears to be a cartel which systematically works with a view to grabbing government property.