IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
W.A. (MD) No. 710 of 2018 and C.M.P. No. 4127 of 2018
Decided On: 14.09.2021
R. Vellaichamy and Ors.
Vs.
Vairavan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Pushpa Sathyanarayana and T. Krishnavalli, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V. Venkataseshan
For Respondents/Defendant: C. Selvakumar, J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader, P. Mahendiran, Murugavel Rajan, K.K. Kannan, P. Banu Prasath, S. Ramesh, Advocate Commissioner and G. Narayanasamy
JUDGMENT
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
1. The validity of the order dated 21.12.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No. 1734 of 2017 by a learned Single Judge of this Court is put to challenge in this appeal by the third parties.
2. Originally, the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition in W.P. No. 1734 of 2017 are as follow:
2.1. The first respondent is the petitioner before the writ court. According to him, he was permitted to occupy the land measuring 200 sq. ft. in S. No. 933 belonging to Arulmigu Mariamman Temple by the erstwhile trustees for a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-, besides a sum of Rs. 10,000/- being paid towards Security Deposit. He put up a superstructure with ACC Roof in the year 1997 and had been running a Vessel shop.
2.2. While so, the Temple was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Endowments Department (HR & CE Department) and the fifth respondent herein has been looking after the affairs of the temple on behalf of the Department. According to the petitioner, he started to pay the rent to the fourth respondent herein.
2.3. The fifth respondent herein contemplated an action under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, "HR & CE Act") and recommended to the fourth respondent to take action against the encroachers. Based on the same, the fourth respondent vide order dated 30.09.2013 directed the writ petitioner to vacate the subject premises and handover the possession of the same.
2.4. Aggrieved over the said order, the first respondent herein/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE, on 03.01.2014 and also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 670 of 2014 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.01.2014 directed the Commissioner to take up the appeal and the interlocutory application and decide the same on merits on or before 10.02.2014.
2.5. Pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner, HR & CE passed order dated 09.06.2014 in R.P. No. 37/2014/D2 confirming the order dated 30.09.2013. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed a revision on 18.08.2014 before the Government under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act.
2.6. The writ petitioner, who was before the Madurai Bench of this Court in the first round of litigation, had filed W.P. No. 22987 of 2014 at the principal seat seeking a direction to dispose of the said revision. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 22.08.2014, without expressing anything on merits, and thus, directed the Secretary to the Government to dispose of the revision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Pursuant to the said direction, G.O. (Ms) No. 313, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 17.12.2014, was passed dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.
2.7. The petitioner questioned the said order before this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 1885 of 2015, which was disposed of on 06.12.2016 permitting him to make a request to the HR & CE authorities for extending the lease, as it was his claim that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property.
2.8. The petitioner made a representation dated 12.01.2017 to the authorities armed with the said order. However, his request was repudiated vide order of the fifth respondent dated 22.01.2017. The said order was questioned before the writ court.
3. A counter-affidavit had been filed by the Assistant Commissioner before the writ court denying the tenancy of the first respondent herein/petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was the permissive occupant by one of the erstwhile trustees, without the knowledge of the other trustees, which was admitted by him, and such permission was never authorised by the HR & CE Department and hence, the petitioner is only an encroacher and following due process of law, eviction process was initiated. It was submitted that the temple administration was attempting to provide better basic amenities to the devotees, however, the encroachment made by the petitioner and other similarly placed persons caused hindrance in construction of such new facilities.
4. A perusal of the record would go to show that the writ Court, while hearing the writ petition appointed an Advocate Commissioner to cause inspection at the temple premises and ascertain the correct position. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner filed a report dated 05.09.2017. Based on the report, the writ court passed the order dated 21.12.2017, which is impugned in this appeal by the third parties.
5. The grievance of the appellants herein, who were not parties before the writ court, is that the existing shop owners and 50 other shop owners have been legally running their business, are put to heavy loss by the illegal occupants of the temporary shops. Already the existing shops constructed by the temple were not brought to the knowledge of the writ court and the order has been obtained from the writ court as if only hereafter, the construction has to be completed by the temple authorities.
6. The appeal filed by the third parties have now widened the scope of the writ petition. The larger interests that has to be addressed are:
(1) to maintain the temple,
(2) to streamline the allotment of shops,
(3) to remove the encroachers and trespassers who have temporary shops or sheds,
(4) to do the fencing of the temple,
(5) whether a new entrance can be created for coming into the temple, as the existing one is coming through the river path/river way, and
(6) to restore the river stream/way by removing the encroachers.
7. To give a neutral picture of the existing position, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by this court, who had filed his report with annexures dated 10.09.2018.
8. Before we delve further into the matter, let us travel to know more about the temple, its location and its importance:
Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, is situate in Irukkangudi village, Sattur Taluk in Virudhunagar District. The said temple is located between two rivers, namely Arjuna and Vaippar. The river that is flowing on the South side of the temple is called Vaippar river. The said river Vaippar flows through Karivalam Vandha Nallur, Sattur, Kollampatti and joins Arjuna river in Irukkangudi village and flows further through Muthulapuram and Vilathikulam, before it reaches Ocean. Vaippar river has a reservoir at Vembakottai and it includes a dam in Irukkangudi. On the East of the temple, after 20 feet pathway a Pongal Mandapam is situate. Further east of the Pongal Mandapam, a 30 feet pathway leads to Arjuna river. On the South of the Pongal Mandapam, a shopping complex with two blocks is constructed and only in one building/block, business is being carried on. The existing building intended for letting out for shops, is not properly designed and it is not accessible for the devotees to visit them and make their purchases. On the South-East of the Temple, there is a Guest House, which is maintained by the Temple. On the South of the Temple also there is a Mudi Kanikkai Mandapam (Tonsure House), adjacent to which, there are toilets and bathrooms. The West of the Mudi Kanikkai Mandapam is the Annadhana Koodam, the Devasthanam Board office, etc. Immediately on the North-South of the Devasthanam Board, the pathway runs East to West which leads to a dam on the Arjuna river. The sluice gates are visible from the temple on the pathway. On both sides, there are temporary shops roofed with Tin sheets situate. On the Northern side of the temple, an Arch has been put up. From the stone inscription, it is noted that it is of the year 1984. The Arch is on the banks of the Arjuna river. The devotees or anybody intend to enter into the temple on the Northern side, have to cross Arjuna river through the Arch and reach the temple. From the Arch, the check dam is visible, which is within a distance of 100 metres. In the event of the dam being opened, the entire area will be flooded. Though there is a road on the western side of the temple, there is no defined entrance to get into the temple. It would be a risk factor to continue to have the entrance on the North-East side of the temple getting through the river, without a causeway or a bridge.
9. It is also brought to our notice that a proposal is made by the Executive Officer of the temple for the development of the temple and its surroundings. As per the report, the existing shopping complexes, which does not serve the purpose and also are in dilapidated condition have to be pulled down and the same can be shifted to the Western side of the Temple and a permanent structure can be brought up on the North-South and North-West of the temple. In fact, once the concrete structure, adjacent to Pongal Mandapam are removed, the said place can be developed as a garden (Nandavanam), as it would be on the banks of the river Arjuna. Besides these permanent structures there is a slaughter house, which is semi-permanent and during the special days and important festival days, the slaughtering happens in the said place emanating foul smell and waste causing health hazard. Apart from the slaughter house, there are live offerings by the devotees and there should be a proper shed for the maintenance of the same. The slaughter house should be maintained in a hygienic way with proper drainage and facilitate for disposal of the wastage, etc.
10. The temple is situate in a total extent of around 29 Acres. The Commissioner also has recommended that covering the entire temple with a compound wall is feasible and a representation in this regard has been made by the temple authorities to Public Works Department. Upon getting a nod from the Public Works Department and also from the Commissioner, HR & CE, the construction of the compound wall can be completed. While doing so, the Arch on the North-East can be closed and compounded and opening has to be given only on the North-West, so that in the event of water flowing from the nearby dam, it would not cause any risk to anybody and also to prevent encroachers occupying the river space.
11. Apart from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, a Status Report was also filed by the fifth respondent, who is the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mariamman Temple. She has also stated that the temple is situate in an extent of 11.68 hectares in Survey No. 933.2 of Melamadai, Irukkangudi village. The Commissioner Report also stated that if a permanent solution is given for the vendors by having a permanent structure and letting out on lease, it will bring an end to the existing problem. Once such a construction is made, irrespective of the fact whether they are existing lessees or encroachers or trespassers, everyone has to take part in public auction and get their rights of lease.
12. While hearing the appeal, this court had impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Vaippar Basin, Virudhunagar, suo motu vide order dated 16.08.2018. The Executive Engineer also in his report dated 24.08.2018 stated that there is a separate engineering wing to carry out construction and other work/activities. The temple authorities can provide for fencing to the extent of 29.03 Acres. Any other required features can be also provided, in consultation with the Public Works Department. It is also feasible and the Public Works Department has no objection for providing a compound wall for the area for protection. The maintenance and up-keeping of the temple including managing the tenancy rights of the appellants as well as the writ petitioner and other stakeholders, can be resolved not only by the Temple and the HR&CE, but also the other departments of the Government, namely the Revenue, Public Health, Electricity Board, Rural Development Department, Public Works Department and Police.
13. Even though the appeal is preferred by third parties, considering the larger perspective, namely the development of the temple and resolve the existing tenancy, this court is of the view that, based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the status report of the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Muthumariamman Temple, Irukkangudi, we propose to issue certain directions to the Departments concerned.
14. The HR&CE and other temple trustees are aware of the facilities that are required for the devotees, who visit there from various places, near and far. The devotees have to be given sufficient facilities, including supply of drinking water, maintenance of the slaughter house with appropriate disposal and drainage facilities and sanitary upkeep. As lot of devotees offer their hair, the Tonsure House has to be maintained hygienically with sufficient number of bath rooms. In this regard, the temple has to engage Sanitary workers and Security Guards. In spite of sufficient space available, the same is not put to optimum use. There is no proper car parking facility also. If the temple authorities are directed to earmark a convenient place for parking the vehicles and the parking area also should be maintained clean with fencing, garbage bins and toilet facilities.
15. The Public Health Department also has to ensure that the surroundings are kept clean and sanitized. The food prepared and sold to the public shall ensure Food Safety and Standards.
16. Not only the river poramboke has been occupied by the shops by trespassing, but also the Electricity Board has given them power supply. It is the TANGEDCO, which has to take action against those who are unauthorisedly using the power and take appropriate action against them.
17. The Rural Development Department also can step into the maintenance of the temple and the surroundings by erecting street lamps and maintaining the crowd during festival days.
18. Policing is necessary to ensure that the devotees make worship without the fear of losing their valuable to the bandits. The presence of the Policemen will minimize intimidation in the temple precincts and surroundings.
19. The Public Works Department (PWD), which is in-charge of the maintenance of the rivers and river basin and it allowed the trespassers to occupy in the river area and put up some permanent structures for sale of pooja articles, etc.,. Miracles do happen in our daily lives. Miracles of God cannot be taken advantage of by the PWD. If there is a torrential rain leading to deluge necessitating the PWD authorities to open the sluice Gates of the Irukangudi Dam, not only the shops would be inundated, but also the shopkeepers and also the devotees lives would be in peril. PWD, being the custodian of the Dam and the rivers, is duty bound to apply "precautionary principle" anticipating and preventing any flood like situation in the river way. The authorities should not put the lives of the Tradesmen and the devotees at risk.
20. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to touch upon the need to protect the environment, more particularly, tanks, rivers, waterbodies, etc., which are all public properties. It is an undisputed fact that the Government alone is not the custodian of waterbodies, but it is the responsibility of the people. However, the authorities should have watch over the protection of waterbodies and they should not allow it to be destroyed. Knowing the importance of protecting the water environment, a Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us is a party and authored the judgment [PSNJ]) in T.K. Shanmugam, Secretary, C.P.I. (M), V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2016-1-L.W. 168, has held as follows:
"27. It has become inevitable for this Court to put on record that the authorities in power cannot destroy the water bodies or water courses formed naturally for the benefit of mankind for ever and it is beyond the power of the State to alienate or re-classify the water bodies for some other purposes without compensating the effect of such water bodies."
21. Earlier, a Full Bench of this Court in T.K. Shanmugam, Secretary, C.P.I. (M), V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015-5-L.W. 397, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and touching upon the "public trust doctrine", held as follows:
"44. Moreover, Article 51-A of the Constitution of India enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve the national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. This Article is not only fundamental in the governance of the country but a duty on the State to apply these principles in making laws and further to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also the various laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures. But unfortunately, the State, by passing the above said Government Orders, actively encourages encroachers of water bodies, to indulge in illegal and unlawful activities and also bent upon regularizing their possession which has to be deprecated.
45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference on the following terms:--The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, does not in any manner dilute the observations/directions issued in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu reported 2005-3-L.W. 313: 2005 (4) CTC 1, as quoted with the approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2011-3-L.W. 17: (2011) 11 SCC 396, and the observations contained in paragraph 20(d)(e) of the judgment of the Division Bench in T.S. Senthil Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010-3-MLJ-771 and that the tanks which do not fall within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, also require protection from encroachment and any encroachment made in such tanks or water bodies have to be removed by following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905."
22. Before holding so, the Full Bench took note of the various earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Benches of this Court and also made certain observations. It is apposite to quote the following paragraphs in this regard:
"20. In the case of R. Lakshmnan (supra), a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court to restore the capacity of the water bodies as on date of the 1923 survey. The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the Government to issue appropriate direction which should be mandatory in nature to all local bodies, including Corporation, Municipalities and Panchayats not to grant any planning permission for any construction that is put up in a water body and not to grant approval for any lay out or building plan, if the land is located either in part or in whole, in a water body and directing the Government to contemplate issuing of an order under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act making it mandatory to enclose a certificate of the Revenue Authority along with building plan application, certifying that no part of the land is located in a water body and wrong information if provided, the person who issued the certificate to be held responsible. Further direction was issued to preserve and protect the water bodies and complete the exercise already undertaken within a period of one year and Civil Courts not to grant any interim protection order restraining the authorities from evicting a person from a water body. This decision was rendered by the Division Bench on 06.08.2014, fixing a prematory time limit of one year which has already lapsed. Nothing has been placed on record by the first and second respondents that the order of Division Bench has been complied with. Thus, this is the third default committed by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
21. We may now refer to certain provisions of the RSOs with particular reference to water bodies. .... RSO 15(38)(ii) deals with water course poramboke and states that great care should be taken to preserve the margins of canals, channels and streams and the transfer and assignment of such water course source poramboke can be ordered only by Government in consultation with the Commissioner of Land Administration and the Chief Engineer (PWD), vide G.O.Ms. No. 1267, Revenue, dated 29.12.1997. General Instructions given for Land Administration states that encroachments in poramboke lands like water sources/courses, gracing grounds, temple lands, kalam, etc., are considered as highly objectionable and these encroachments have to be evicted. The Revenue, Public Works and Highways Department authorities and local bodies like Municipalities and Corporation have been empowered to evict unauthorised encroachments after giving due notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for which a District level Committee under the Chairman of the District Collector has been constituted. Insofar as the directions contained in the RSO which are inconsistent with any other subsequent enactment or decision of this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court are deemed to have been superseded.
22. The common thread which runs through the manual of Revenue Administration is to preserve water courses as such. Though certain Government Orders were issued during 1970s, permitting assignment of Tank-beds with due permission, if those Government Orders seek to regularise illegal encroachment in tank-beds, water channels or area abutting and on margins of water channels to that extent the Manual of Revenue administration and the Government Orders are deemed to have been superseded, more particularly in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra). However, the manual of Revenue Administration does not specifically state about assigning tank beds for a different user or concession to house site etc after reclassification.
.....
24. The Division Bench in L. Krishnan's case referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari, wherein the importance of tanks/ponds etc was highlighted in the following terms:--
"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."
(emphasis supplied)
25. After referring to the above observations, it was pointed out that having regard to the precarious water situation prevailing in major part of the year in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is imperative that water storage resources such as tanks, ponds, odai, canals, etc., are not obliterated by the encroachers. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Metha, (supra), observing that the 'precautionary principle' makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environment degradation. Ultimately, the Division Bench directed the State Government to identify all such 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 resource which has been classified, as such in the revenue records to its original position.
26. Thus, the Division Bench in L. Krishnan, did not limit its direction to water bodies under the control of the Public Works Department. In fact, it has issued directions for all natural water resources in the different parts of the State of Tamil Nadu and wherever illegal encroachments are found to take steps for removal of the encroachments in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The State Government thought fit to enact the Tank Act and though the object of the enactment was couched on a border principle, the Act was restricted to the encroachments in tanks which are under the control and management of the Public Works Department. The question would be as to whether this would in any manner alter the position or could have an effect of diluting the directions/observations of the Division Bench in L. Krishnan's case. The answer to this question shall be an emphatic 'NO'.
27. Section 11 of the Tank Act, specifically states that the operation of other laws not to be affected, as the provisions of the Tank Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for time being in force. Thus, the encroachments in respect of water bodies which are not covered under the provisions of the Tank Act have to be necessarily removed by resorting to the procedure under the Land Encroachment Act. We are not inclined to ignore the directions issued by the Division Bench in L. Krishnan's case, as general observations, as observed in Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association's case. We may hasten to add that in L. Krishnan's, the Division Bench issued positive direction to the State Government and this cannot be brushed aside as general observations and more so in the light of the observations in the case of Jagpal Singh, wherein pointed directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to all the Chief Secretaries. In Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association's case though the Division Bench upheld the G.O.Ms. No. 854, it held that the said G.O., must read along with the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, Tank Act and Standing Orders of Board of Revenue. If that be the interpretation, the question would be whether the State Government would be empowered to issue Government Orders for regularising encroachments in water bodies on the ground that the water body has lost its character and it is no longer a water body on account of disuse. We may answer this query by referring to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh:--
"19. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.
20. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that when a pond is falling to disuse, the Government including the Revenue Authorities should bestow their attention to develop the same. Their Lordships further held that the Government Orders issued by the various State Governments permitting allotment of Grama Sabha lands to private persons and commercial enterprises to be illegal and to be ignored. Commenting upon the Government letter dated 26.09.2007, issued by the Government of Punjab, regularising the possession of unauthorised occupant, as not valid opined that such letters (Government Letters) are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and such illegality cannot be regularised.
29. Reverting back to the Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association's case, in paragraph 28, it was observed that it should not be misunderstood, as if the Division Bench was suggesting that all encroachments should be regularised or encouraged, but the State Government to take a conscious decision, if the land on which there are encroachments for a long period and such land is not required for any public purpose or for the State and a person remaining in adverse possession for more than 30 years acquires such right over the property. The other observations contained in para 30 of the judgment are that the Government Order (G.O. No. 854) makes it amply clear, where the environment is not affected in the sense, the area is not in use as 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.
.....
34. In Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970), Pages 471-566, Prof. Sax said that three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine, namely:
'1. the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent;
3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.'
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, [(1996) 5 SCC 281], held that there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.
36. Thus, the public trust doctrine requires that natural resources such as lakes, ponds etc., are held by the State as a 'trustee' of the public and can be disposed of only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust."
23. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court lays emphasize on the importance of preservation of waterbodies and the authorities, even for the benefit of the rural masses, cannot be allowed to permit disuse of the waterbodies.
24. It is also apt to state that in terms of another order passed by this Court, the Engineer-in-Chief, WRD & Chief Engineer (General), PWD, Government of Tamil Nadu, sent a communication to the Chennai Engineer, WRD of Regions, in Letter No. 27(1)/00127/OT5/2018-5, dated 05.08.2021 and the relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows:
"A copy of the Government counsel letter and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras cited are appended herewith wherein, it is requested to form a committee at every Panchayat Union level to inspect the water channels and restore the same as per revenue records in compliance with the High Court Order. In this regard, the Chief Engineers are requested to take necessary action and form the committee comprising Assistant Engineer of WRD, Official of other departments, namely, Revenue, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and Local Bodies/Municipal Corporations in compliance with the Court order and furnish action taken report immediately to this office for taking further necessary action."
Thus, it is incumbent on the part of the stakeholders to maintain the water resources from free encroachment and restore the same in their original form.
25. In the instant case, as stated hereinabove, the temple is located between two rivers and entry to the temple on the North side is crossing through one of the rivers. The said entrance has to be shifted to restore the river stream. PWD, who is the 189th respondent, is directed to identify trespassers and remove the encroachers from the river area. Upon such removal, the PWD may consider constructing an over bridge connecting the temple and the road across the river on the Northern side, without disturbing the river passage. It is high time for the PWD and temple authorities to think of either shifting the Arch from the Northern Gate to the North-West side or erecting a new Arch on the North West side, by closing the ingress at the North Arch Gate side. This will serve twin purposes of removing the unauthorized shops in the riverway and also avoiding devotees thronging in the riverway.
26. To sum up, (i) The authorities of the HR & CE Department and the Temple are directed to lease out the required number of shops, by auction, to the willing tradesmen making it clear that no unauthorized vendor would be allowed to have shop hereafter and ensure that the shops so allotted have sufficient ingress and egress facilities for the devotees to have their purchase. This has to be done after demolishing all the unauthorized and temporary shelters erected by the individuals, so also the temple, so as to pave way for the legally allotted shopkeepers to have good and genuine trade with the devotee customers with proper ingress and egress facilities;
(ii) While doing so, the said authorities shall take steps in accordance with law to evict the unauthorized occupants/shopkeepers with police aid and no one should be allowed to have their shops without any valid licence/lease;
(iii) The HR & CE/Temple Authorities are also directed to ensure that the drinking water tanks and taps are placed in sufficient gaps with uninterrupted water supply;
(iv) The Tonsure House shall be maintained by the temple and HR & CE Department neat and tidy;
(v) The Slaughter House shall be kept clean, by providing necessary water, drainage and sanitations facilities, as cleanliness is Godliness, which, the Deity would also like;
(vi) Required number of security guards and sanitary staff shall be engaged by the temple authorities and the localbody in co-ordination;
(vii) Proper four wheeler and two wheeler parking facilities with sign boards shall be provided and the entire available space shall be put to optimum use by the temple authorities and they shall ensure that the space is kept clean, tidy and congestion free;
(viii) Proper toilet and bathing facilities shall be given at appropriate places with cleanliness without causing any odour to the other facilities;
(ix) The Health officials of the District shall depute required number of health workers both to ensure sanitation and also food safety and standards;
(x) The TANGEDCO authorities concerned are directed to ensure the supply of electricity only to the authorized/licensed shopkeepers and none should be allowed to unauthorizedly use the electricity. It is their duty to ensure that the live wires are kept safely without causing any hazard to the devotees and general public, at large;
(xi) The authorities of the concerned local body, so also the higher officials of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department shall ensure that their duties, including providing proper streets with lights, are fulfilled, both festival days and non-seasonal days;
(xii) The PWD authorities, in co-ordination with the temple authorities, shall take steps to construct bridge, as has been stated by its Executive Engineer, WRD, Vaippar Basin Division, Virudhunagar District, and to remove unauthorized occupation and restore the river-way and riverbeds and also to prevent further occupation. In this regard, the letter of the Engineer-in-Chief, WRD & Chief Engineer (General), PWD, Chennai, dated 05.08.2021 may be taken note of and complied with. Similarly, they shall endeavour to provide compound wall on all the directions, in view of the fact that the temple is located in an island, so as to avoid flooding, in the event of opening the sluice gates of the Dam.
(xiii) The District Police administration shall give necessary protection to the temple and its devotees, in implementing the above directions. While doing so, required number of women police personnel shall also be deployed;
(ix) The District Revenue administration shall discharge the duties to be performed by them in time without any delay, by co-ordinating with the temple authorities and the other departments.
(x) The second/third respondent is directed to address the Secretaries/Heads of the concerned Departments in implementing the above directions.
(xi) The fifth respondent is directed to take appropriate follow-up action to ensure that the appropriate course of action has been taken, in implementing the above directions.
27. With the above directions and observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28. A report qua the status of the compliance of the above directions shall be filed by the third respondent before this Court once in three months, i.e., in the first working of every quadrant, until further orders.
29. The Registry is directed to list this appeal on 01.12.2021 for placing first of such report.
No comments:
Post a Comment