Judgment :- (Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus and mandamus as stated therein.) Common Order: (P. Sathasivam, J.) By consent of all the parties, main writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. 2. M/s. Subbarayan and Pavayee, residents of Sivashankerapuram, Puttuthurai Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District, who, according to them own agricultural lands in Mummudi Village, filed W.P.No.24682 of 2005, praying to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the file/proceedings in Lr.No.127 M/27.2 dated 31.05.2005 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 to 10 to remove all encroachments in the eri/land in S.No.49 of Thalaivasal Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. 3. One P.Natesa Gounder of Mummudi, Thalaivasal Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District has filed W.P.No.14236 of 2005, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to evict the encroachments caused to be done in the property in Survey No.49 in the portion wrongly sub-divided as 49/7 by removal of the huts to restore the Eri (Tank). 4. Even at the outset, it is represented by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent in W.P.No.14236 of 2005 that the petitioner, viz., P. Natesa Gounder is no more. The above statement is hereby recorded. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to go into the relief prayed for in the said writ petition. 5. Coming to the relief prayed for in W.P.No.24682 of 2005, based on the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, this Court appointed one Mr. S. Thangavel, as Commissioner for inspection of the property in dispute and submit a report. With reference to the same, the Advocate Commissioner has filed his report dated 21.04.2006. In view of the report by the Advocate Commissioner, we are of the view that there is no need to traverse the factual details as stated in the writ petition. The Advocate Commissioner, after notice to all the parties concerned, including the officials of the Public Works Department and Revenue, inspected the area in Survey No.49/3 and after personal inspection as well as after inquiring several persons has concluded, "a. the disputed portion marked as A, B, C, D, E, F in the plan is part of the Eri in S.F.No.49/3. b. the sub-division of S.F.No.49/7 effected in the Revenue Records by subdividing the Eri in S.F.No.49/3 has been cancelled and the S.F.No.49/3 has been restored to the original status in the Revenue Records. c. the disputed portion appears to have been reclaimed and the level of that portion has been raised to the level of the road leading to Puttuthurai. d. a major portion of the huts are unoccupied, but a few huts are occupied. e. no market is being run either in the disputed portion or in the shed partly in poromboke land in S.F.No.46 and partly in the disputed portion at present. " 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised an apprehension that on the date of visit of the Commissioner, there were no activities in the market and unless a positive direction is issued to the concerned authority, there is every possibility for the encroachers to occupy the land in question once again. He has requested for further direction to the Commissioner to visit once again and ascertain the ground reality. 7. In addition to the report of the Commissioner and his observations, the Collector, Salem – 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. The counter affidavit of the District Collector shows that no pucca buildings or semi permanent buildings are in existence in Thalaivasal Eri, but there are some temporary thatched shelters, which were put up 2 years ago and there are no inhabitants. It is also stated by him that the thatched shelters are not usable and they are in dilapidated condition which cannot be classified as an encroachment. It is further stated that what was given by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Trichy Region on 31.05.2005 to the Collector of Salem District is only NOC and not his proceedings and even the said NOC was issued on fulfilling certain conditions. It is also stated that only after obtaining the transfer of land by the District Administration, any person can enter into the land and no such order has been issued by the District Administration so far. It is also stated that only after obtaining the transfer of land by the District Administration, any person can enter into the land and no such order has been issued by the District Administration so far. It is stated that due to some wrong classification of the aforesaid land, NOC was given in 2002 and the land has also been elevated and subsequently classified as Eri Poramboke by the Revenue Department and the third respondent has only recommended and given NOC to the District Administration to the effect that instead of deepening the already elevated land, the capacity of the tank may be restored. 8. The 11th respondent, C. Viyyapuri, President of Aikya Vivasayigal Sangam, Thalaivasal, Aragalur, Attur Taluk has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is basically a farmer and the President of United Farmers Association of Tamil Nadu and also an Ex-Member of Agricultural High Level Committee of Government of Tamil Nadu. It is stated that after several representations to the Government, finally the concerned authority allotted a piece of medow land in the lake at Thalaivasal, NOC was issued by third respondent and protection was given in the year 2002 itself because public market was functioning for a long period in that place. It is stated that there was no water storage for the past over 30 years in the area allotted to the market and there is a proposal to construct a lab for poultry farm by the Tamil Nadu Veterinary University in a part of the allotted land and since there is no space for expansion of the existing public market except the lake area, the 11th respondent and others made a complaint to the Government, objecting to the private market being run by Natesa Gounder and the District Collector cancelled the permission given to him, against which he filed W.P.No.17055 of 2005 and the same was allowed on technical grounds. It is stated that the District Collector again issued a notice to him for cancellation of the order and he again filed another writ petition and obtained an order of stay. It is stated that the District Collector again issued a notice to him for cancellation of the order and he again filed another writ petition and obtained an order of stay. It is also stated that many people in the village as well as surrounding villages depend on the market for their income and even after allotment of the land area to the public market, the storage capacity of the Eri is not affected and since the lake is the property of PWD and with the permission of PWD, the public market is functioning in that area, there is no illegal occupation in the lake area. 9. In the light of the above pleadings, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned senior counsel for 10th respondent as well as the counsel for 11th respondent. 10. We have already referred the conclusion/observations arrived at by the Commissioner in his report dated 21.04.2006. We also referred the stand taken by the District Collector in his counter affidavit dated 09.09.2005. The details furnished by the District Collector, Salem are hereby recorded. We also accept the report of the Advocate Commissioner. In the light of the conclusion/observations of the Advocate Commissioner, we direct the official respondents not to allow anyone to encroach the area in S.No.49 of Thalaivasal Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. Though the Panchayat is permitted to continue their activities in the land belonging to the PWD, they are not permitted to put up any permanent structure in the area affecting the storage position of the same. The said direction is applicable not only to the Panchayat, but also to other Government agencies as well as individuals. It is needless to mention that it is the duty of the official respondents, particularly the District Collector to enforce the same. With the above directions, WP.No.24682 of 2005 is disposed of . In view of death of the petitioner in WP.No.14236 of 2005, the same is dismissed as unnecessary. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs., are closed.