The Hindu Business Line : Law takes its course on what stood on a watercourse

TO you I am bound for life and education, says Desdemona in Othello. Pity, land isn't bound for life to an educational institution likewise, as one saw in the decision of the Madras High Court on December 13, 2005, in Dr M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute (Deemed University) vs The Collector of Thiruvallur District.

The institute located in Maduravoyal, Chennai, had appealed to the court for a writ of mandamus (means "we order" in Latin), seeking to prevent the Collector, and also the Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality and the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, from demolishing the Institute's buildings.

From the affidavit cited in the text of the judgment one learns that a 20-year-old body called Tmt Kannammal Educational Trust, engaged in professional education, had sponsored the Institute. It was claimed that constructions put up in 20 acres of land in Maduravoyal Village and Mogappair Village had been in existence for more than 20 years.

Govt lands bought thru `regular sale deeds'

The affidavit said that there were Government lands contiguous to the patta lands of the institute, in the possession of certain parties `for more than 40 years'. It seems the institute purchased those lands 20 years ago `by way of regular sale deeds'; thereafter, the institute "put up constructions in those lands to accommodate boys and girls hostel, library and other classrooms." During 2001-02, the authorities "were trying to interfere with the possession of the said lands and issued notices under the Tamil Nadu Act, 1905", and so the institute approached the Government "with a request for grant of long-term lease or outright sale of the above said Government lands in favour of the Trust".

A representation in this connection was submitted in June 2003, and the same was pending with the Government, said the institute.

What about constructions in the `other lands' that belonged to the institute? It told the court about having applied to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority "for regularisation of certain violations in the said constructions", and about having paid `the regularisation fee'.

The affidavit said that on December 10, 2005 (Saturday), the Ambattur Municipality served upon the institute a notice dated November 19, 2005, directing it "to demolish the constructions put up without permission and also to comply with the same within three days".

The institute said that such an extreme and harsh action was set in motion `without any prior notice and opportunity' under `the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or under any other enactment'. Therefore, the proposed action was `illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law', contended the Institute. Also, since the educational institution had `already approached the Government for assignment or outright sale', the eviction move should be halted, prayed the institute.

Objectionable occupation of watercourse poromboke

What were the arguments of the other side? In a counter-affidavit, the District Collector said that one-third of the land occupied by the institute was on "a highly objectionable Government watercourse poromboke". And that action as per law had been taken by the Tahsildar to clear the encroachment.

"Notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued," said the Collector. The Collector also mentioned that on October 23, 2005, the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, had rejected the institute's request to assign/grant lease of the Government land, "on the ground that it is a highly objectionable watercourse poromboke".

More importantly, he highlighted that, based on the direction of the First Bench of the Madras High Court, "the Special Commissioner of Land Administration issued instructions to the Revenue Divisional Officers and Tahsildar to identify the watercourse poromboke and evict the unlawful encroachments in a phased manner within a period of one month."

He reported that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration had specifically directed to evict the encroachments in Coovam river poromboke "in full compliance of the court order dated June 27, 2005 in W.P.No.20186 of 2000."

Floods and an obstructed river

The crucial paragraph in the Collector's statement was this: "During the recent north-east monsoon, Tamil Nadu received unprecedented rains in four spells, leading to extensive flooding, loss of human life and damage to crops, roads, bridges, culverts, houses and other basic infrastructure. Heavy rains battered Chennai city and suburbs during the months of October-November 2005, inundating several areas. Many residential areas in Maduravoyal firka were marooned as the free flow of water in Coovam river was obstructed by many encroachments in the river."

Seeing `the plight of the people', the Collector instructed the Tahsildar to evict the encroachments in watercourse poromboke `to avoid flooding in low-lying areas'. And the eviction operation began on November 7, 2005. As there was no response from the institute to notices served on November 21, and December 8, 2005, "the compound walls and cycle stand were removed on December 10, 2005," said the Collector.

The two notices in question were pasted on the building since the institute refused to receive the same. "The hostel rooms were not touched till date as the petitioner requested for two days time on December 10, 2005 to fully vacate the belongings," said the Collector. "Land filling only was removed on November, 11, 2005 so as to let the free flow of Coovam river before the next rains."

For the institute, it was T.R. Rajagopalan who argued that "though the buildings have been constructed in poromboke land", the officials were not justified in taking any action as long as the institute's request for long term lease/out-right sale was pending with the Government.

"He also contended that when several other obstructions/encroachments are there in Coovam river, the respondents have taken action only against the petitioner." For the Government, it was N.R. Chandran, Advocate General, who reiterated that action to remove all encroachments/obstructions in the Coovam river which began on November 7, 2005 would continue "till all the encroachments/ obstructions are removed". And that the Government was determined about it.

Rained more but breadth less

Justices P. Sathasivam and Chitra Venkataraman heard the arguments. They noted that the institute stated in its affidavit that it had purchased from various persons by way of pucca sale deeds; but there was also this admission by the institute that the lands belonged to the Government. The court verified a sketch produced by Chandran, showing the poromboke land wherein the institute had constructed `cycle stand, girls hostel, boys hostel and library'.

The judgment cites the Collector's counter-affidavit on how the institute's constructions had the effect of "reducing the breadth of the Coovam river from over 415 feet to 116 feet".

The court observed that in November and December, "the entire State of Tamil Nadu, in particular the city of Chennai and its neighbouring districts, received unprecedented rain leading to extensive flood; loss of human life; damage to the crops, roads, bridges, culverts, houses and other basic infrastructure". As you may remember, "Heavy rains battered the city of Chennai and suburbs during the months of October and November 2005, inundating several areas and many residential areas like Maduravoyal were marooned as the free flow of water in Coovam river was obstructed by many encroachments like that of the petitioner."

Then came the larger interest angle, when the court said that considering the public interest involved, there was no substance in the claim made by the institute. "Looking at any angle, we do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner," said the court.

The institute's counsel prayed for `a reasonable time to remove their belongings' and also sought permission to demolish the offending building and remove the articles therein.

"We are not inclined to accede to the said request," said the court. "However, the petitioner is free to take all their belongings such as library books, computers, if any, and other fittings," ruled the court.

"The demolition shall be carried out only by the District Administration. The petitioners are granted 24 hours time from now for removal of all their belongings."

In The Tempest, Prospero speaks of, "one so strong that could control the moon, make flows and ebbs." We may say that of courts too, in the light of the decisive action that followed after the verdict was pronounced, against what the Bard would write as `lofty proud encroaching tyranny' in King Henry VI.

LawOfTheLand@rediffmail.com

D. Murali

More Stories on : Real Estate & Construction

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
India may sign broad pact with ASEAN

`India, Russia to work on new economic pact'

Law takes its course on what stood on a watercourse

Transfer troubles

Some `Plan' speaking!

Just the right time for REITs?

What's the standard?

India seeks FDI that can generate employment — Assures to put 'best foot forward' to help investors