Judgment :- Admit. Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The writ petitioner is a resident welfare association at Madipakkam. The members of the petitioner association are stated to be in occupation of the various extents of land in survey No.269 of Madipakkam-II, Tambaram Taluk. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, each one of the members have been in occupation for a number of years and that their occupation have been recognised. In such background the petitioner association seeks a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue pattas in favour of the residents of the said area. 3. Perused the material papers placed before this Court. The proceedings dated 1.10.92 on the file of the Special Tahsildar, Saidapet available on record show that the entire extent of land in survey No.269 above referred to is 6.94 acres and it stands classified as 'Eri poramboke' in the revenue records. The proceedings referred to above further records that with a view to regularise the encroachment in that area it is intended to reclassify the said 'eri poramboke' as gramanatham and on such reclassification objections were asked for. Relying upon this document the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the possession of the members of the petitioner association stands recognised. The document relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only a proposal to re-classify the land in question from the classification of "Eri-Poramboke" (tank poramboke) into "Gramanatham" and objections were called for. There is nothing on record to show that such a re-classification was ever done. Government in G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 29.04.2003 prohibited assignments of lands, which stand classified as water courses, tanks, etc..... A learned Judge of this court in the unreported judgment dated 05.06.2002 in W.P.Nos.15673 to 15686/2002 negatived the claim for assignment of lands, in respect of which there is a bar/ban, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in A.I.R. Supreme Court Weekly 2001 Page 2865 (Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi). 4. I perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Kamala Devi). 4. I perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In that decided case, assignment of lands to various individuals was questioned by an individual on the ground that lands classified as pond is of public utility and meant for public use and therefore no part of it could have been allotted in favour of any person. It was also argued that under the Statutory Act in force in Uttar Pradesh, lands classified as pond was not one among the classes of land that could be allotted. The Departmental Authorities cancelled the allotment and on being challenged by the allottees, the High Court gave the relief in favour of some of the allottees in respect of certain extent of land and rejected in respect of other extent. In the above stated facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as follows: "13. It is important to note that 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 enable people to enjoy a quality life which is essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including 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 public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites". The civil appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India giving various directions. They are as hereunder: "14.For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated February 25, 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on March 12, 1999. Consequently, respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted to them, within six months from today. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period, the official respondents i.e., respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period, the official respondents i.e., respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. The State including respondents 11 to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting environment in regard to which this court has repeatedly expressed it's concern. Such measures must begun at the grass-root level, if they were to become the nation's pride." 5. Therefore it is clear from the above judgment that a duty is cast upon the State to protect and preserve water courses, ponds, tanks and other lands so as to avoid ecological imbalance. The present case comes within one of the lands to be preserved by the State. As already noted, the State Government, has banned allotment of such lands to any individuals. Therefore finding that the petitioner has no legal right to compel the respondents to recognise their possession and issue pattas, the writ petition stands dismissed. The State Government is, therefore, directed to take expeditious steps to remove the encroachment in the lands concerned and restore it to the nature's fold. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.37394/2003 is also dismissed.