The Madras High Court has held that water spread area (Neerpidipu) classified as such in the revenue records retains its character as a water body regardless of whether it is also patta land. The patta holder’s rights over such land are limited and do not extend to construction or any activity that obstructs the free flow of water or impedes surface runoff. It is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the character of such water spread areas is maintained, and any encroachment must be removed by following due process of law.
Deliberate concealment of material entries in official records while furnishing copies to the Court constitutes misleading the Court and amounts to contempt, warranting suo motu action. Accordingly, the Court directed the fourth respondent (Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk) to issue notice to the concerned encroachers and, after giving them an opportunity of hearing, take action as per law to remove the encroachments.
Also read SC Orders Four-Tier Motor Insurance Regime, ANPR-Based E-Challans for Uninsured Vehicles
The Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that during the hearing, the Government Advocate conceded that Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2 are water bodies but contended that Survey No. 33/1 is patta land. The petitioners’ counsel, however, produced the relevant Register extract, which showed that Survey No. 33/1 has been classified as “Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu”, meaning a water spread area. The Court noted that while such land can also be patta land, the patta holder’s rights are limited: he cannot put up construction or do anything that may obstruct the free flow of water, and surface runoff cannot be impeded in any manner.
The Court further observed a serious act of suppression by the revenue authorities. The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, had furnished written instructions stating that Survey No. 33/1 is patta land. While it is indeed patta land, the remarks column in the “A” Register clearly mentions it as a water spread area Karandhabeebikulam. However, in the photocopy of the “A” Register furnished to the Government Advocate, remarks column 12 was blank, indicating that the entry had been concealed while taking the photocopy. The Court termed this as nothing short of misleading the Court and observed that false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice and would constitute contempt of Court.
Briefly, the petitioners, residents of Thuvarankurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District, approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to direct revenue authorities to remove encroachments made by private parties in the Sakkiliyankulam channel in Survey No. 33/1 and in Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2 of Karanthapadikulam, situated in Ponnampatti Town Panchayat, and restore the water bodies to their original position within a stipulated time frame.
