Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This writ petition, in public interest, was preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to desist from undertaking any construction activity in the Gopal Samudram Lake, Dindigul and to restore the lake to its original condition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that during last many decades, large scale deforestation in the hills surrounding Dindigul town has started, which depleted the surface water in flow into the town. The quality of water has also deteriorated apart from declining of surface water quality in view of opening of number of leather tanning units. Due to inactivity on the part of the respondents and their indifference to the issue, water scarcity has developed in the area. The aforesaid lake, which is a source of water for the Dindigul town, has been encroached and number of construction activity had commenced in a portion of such water body. 3. The 3rd respondent, District Collector, Dindigul, filed his counter affidavit. It is accepted that in the part of Gopal Samudram tank, a Government Hospital has been constructed, a Hanuman temple and a road is also existing apart from illegal encroachment made by sixty individuals. The Madurai Collector, vide his proceeding No.J4/184049/74 dated 29th Sept., 1974, accorded permission for expansion of Government Hospital, Dindigul and changes were carried out both in the town and taluk accounts and the land was handed over to Medical Department on 21st Feb., 1975. The Government of India has sanctioned Rs.28 lakhs for Dindigul District, which, in turn, was allotted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to Dindigul District by G.O. Ms. No.192/SGSY dated 19th July, 2000. Pursuant to the same, vide proceeding ROC No.D4/49030/2000/ dated 8th Sept., 2000, the Collector had accorded permission to enter upon the land in S.No.400/4B measuring an extent of 13090 sq.ft. (30 cents) for construction of a marketing complex under the Swarnajayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana (hereinafter referred to as SGSY). The construction was started and apart from godown and medical equipment, SGSY Marketing Complex has been constructed prior to filing of the writ petition. In paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, the following statement has been made:- "8. It is submitted that the land classified as Gopalsamudram tank has been sub-divided as follows:- There are 60 individuals who have illegally encroached upon the lands in S.No.400/1 and 3 and put up structures. In paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, the following statement has been made:- "8. It is submitted that the land classified as Gopalsamudram tank has been sub-divided as follows:- There are 60 individuals who have illegally encroached upon the lands in S.No.400/1 and 3 and put up structures. Action is being initiated to evict the illegal encroachers on the government land as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Gopalsamudram Tank does not have any inlet channel nor has it any sluice or ayacut or surplus weir. The Gopalsamudram Tank, as per records, has never been a large water body for ground water recharge as per records available. The Inspection Report of the then Tahsildar dated 23. 1970 clearly shows that the tank was receiving the dirty water emptied by the municipal street drains and the refuse, etc., emptied by the municipal carts making the tank water unfit for any purpose. The water stored served as a nursery for mosquitoes. In the same report, Tahsildar has stated that District Revenue Officer inspected the tank on 22. 1968 and recommended for closure of the tank. There has been no attempt by the Municipality to encroach upon the portion of land measuring 3 acres and 5720 sq.ft., classified as Gopalsamudram Tank. On the other hand, there are about 60 encroachments by individuals. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is false and frivolous." 4. In the present case, an interim order of injunction was passed on 17th Feb, 2002, which was subsequently vacated on 10th April, 2002, in view of the fact that the construction of hospital, etc., had already started and was at the stage of completion. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is false and frivolous." 4. In the present case, an interim order of injunction was passed on 17th Feb, 2002, which was subsequently vacated on 10th April, 2002, in view of the fact that the construction of hospital, etc., had already started and was at the stage of completion. On 26th June, 2007, the Court asked to the respondents to give the following information:- "i) The area on which construction has already been made prior to 19th February, 2002, i.e., the date on which the order of interim injunction was passed; ii) The area of construction, if any, made after 10th April, 2002, when the order of injunction was vacated; iii) Whether encroachers, as reported in the counter affidavit filed by the Collector, have been removed; and iv) Total extent of area, which is still vacant." Pursuant to the Courts order, an additional counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein in respect of sixty encroachers, the following stand has been taken:- "Point 3: Where encroachers as reported in the counter affidavit have been removed. At the time of filing counter affidavit in this case, it was reported that there are 60 individuals who have encroached upon the lands in T.S. No.400/1 and 400/3 by way of putting dwelling houses. Since this case is pending before the court of law, the eviction of encroachment could not be carried out till date. Now the Government have ordered in G.O. (Ms) No.854, Revenue Department dated 30.12.2006 to regularize the house site encroachments which are made more than 10 years. As per G.O., the encroachers have applied for granting house site pattas after regularising the encroachments." In view of such stand, now less vacant area has been shown than the vacant area as was shown in the main counter affidavit. 5. Now it is settled law that any area, which is a water body, such as lake, pond or part thereof, or a catchment area during rainy season, no such part could be filled up for no other purpose as the water bodies are to be maintained in public interest. In the case of L. Krishnan – Vs – State of Tamil Nadu reported in (AIR 2005 Madras 311), the Court noticed encroachment as were made in "odai poramboke" (natural water storage resource). In the case of L. Krishnan – Vs – State of Tamil Nadu reported in (AIR 2005 Madras 311), the Court noticed encroachment as were made in "odai poramboke" (natural water storage resource). Taking into consideration the precarious water situation prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu in major part of the area, the Court observed that it is imperative for the State to see that such water storage resources are not obliterated providing healthy environment enabling the people to enjoy equality of life guaranteed under Article 21. The State Government was directed to take legal action for removal of illegal encroachment. The Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari – Vs – Kamala Devi reported in ( AIR 2001 SC 3215 ), the Supreme Court having noticed that a land allotted from part of a pond, held that no such part could have been allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allotted purpose. The allottees were directed to vacate the sites. 6. We have also noticed the decision of the State in G.O. Ms. No.854 dated 30th Dec., 2006, wherein also there is no specific decision has been taken by the State to allot the water body or road to person(s) merely on the ground that the person is occupying the land for more than ten years. It is dependent on other factors. 7. In view of the earlier counter affidavit showing sixty individuals as illegal encroachers on the water body in question (on T.S. 400/1 and 400/3), after five years of pendency of the writ petition, on the basis of a subsequent circular the respondent/State or its authorities cannot legalise an illegality by regularisation of encroachment over the odai poramboke or water body or road or flank. Such action on the part of the respondents will not only be contrary to the direction given by this Court in the case of L. Krishnan (supra), but will also go against the decision of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwaris case (supra). 8. In view of the fact that an hospital has already been constructed on two acres and 21282 sq.ft. of land in T.S. No.400/4, a Hanuman temple has also been constructed on 10141 sq.ft. of land in T.S. 400/2, a road is existing on 13090 sq.ft. 8. In view of the fact that an hospital has already been constructed on two acres and 21282 sq.ft. of land in T.S. No.400/4, a Hanuman temple has also been constructed on 10141 sq.ft. of land in T.S. 400/2, a road is existing on 13090 sq.ft. of land in T.S. 400/3, we are not going to disturb such constructions made much prior to the filing of the writ petition. In respect of the market complex constructed pursuant to Swarnajayanthi Gram Swarozgar Yojana over 13090 sq.ft. of land in T.S. 400/4B also, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, as the respondents are bound to remove all illegal encroachments, other than the construction as referred to above from the rest of three acres and 5720 sq.ft. of land of Gopal Samudram Lake (TS 400/1 and other parts, if any), they are directed to take steps immediately and process should be completed, after giving notice to the concerned persons within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to restore the Gopal Samudram Lake in its original form atleast on the rest of the three acres and 5720 sq.ft. of area in T.S.400/1 for the benefit of public in general and the Collector of the District will ensure compliance, preferably within six months. 9. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.