Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3, Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. S.S. Raghavan and Mr. S.K. Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and have perused the records. 2. The present writ petition has been filed in public interest seeking to forbear the respondents from installing a pumping station for discharging sewage water located in the temple tank belonging to Arulmighu Draupathi Amman Temple, Ullagaram at Chennai and also to maintain the tank as it is. 3. The petitioner claims that he is a resident of Ullagaram, which was under the control of the Exectuive Officer, Ulagaram, Puzhuthivakkam Grade III Municipality. It is stated by the petitioner that the Draupathi Amman Temple situated in Ullagaram village has a big tank adjacent to the same and it was constructed and dedicated by the elders of the village 100 years back and when the third respondent attempted to dump the garbage in the tank, a suit was filed in a representative capacity in O.S. No. 126 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court at Alandur. Thereafter, the garbage was cleared after a compound wall was erected and the tank was restored to its original position. Therefore, the suit was not pursued. 4. Further, due to the directions issued by the Government by introducing the rain water harvesting Scheme, plenty of water got accumulated in the tank and it was cleaned and maintained. The Government also sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- for carrying out rain water harvesting in the Draupathi Amman Temple. It is under these circumstances, when the fourth respondent decided to instal a sewage pumping station in the temple tank, the residents of the village protested. When they did not get any favourable response from the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed in public interest. 5. Subsequently, on the directions of this Court dated 03. 2007, the Executive Officer of the Draupathi Amman Temple was also impleaded as a party fifth respondent to the writ petition and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 5. Subsequently, on the directions of this Court dated 03. 2007, the Executive Officer of the Draupathi Amman Temple was also impleaded as a party fifth respondent to the writ petition and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The petitioner also submitted that the Municipality in its meeting held on 20.11.2006 considered the agenda relating to sewage pumping station for the drainage project of the Municipality to be located elsewhere and also for installing a rain water harvesting for augmenting water for the temple tank. It also sanctioned construction of compound wall for the temple tank and all these will show that it was a temple tank. Even, he enclosed a newspaper report to show the anxiety of the residents in keeping the temple tank without being polluted by the proposed sewage pumping station. 6. A counter affidavit dated 03. 2007 was filed by the fourth respondent (Executive Officer of the Municipality) stating that the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board had identified the fourth respondent Municipality for implementation of underground sewerage scheme with the funds provided by the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission [JNNURM], a scheme sponsored by the Central Government and a sum of Rs. 30.33/-Crores has been allotted for the said scheme. For the successful implementation of the scheme, several sites were considered in consultation with the various Departments including the CMWSSB, District Collector, Kanchipuram and others and the present site was selected for the pumping station. The survey number in which the present site is located was classified as a "grama natham" in the village records and a certificate was also issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Tambaram, that the site was "grama natham" comprising of 3.490 Acres and in the same area, 53 persons have constructed houses encroaching the land. It is also stated that by Resolution No. 49 dated 29.01.2007, the Municipal Council has approved the site and if the scheme is implemented, it will render maximum use for the village and flooding due to monsoon rains will be avoided. 7. An additional counter affidavit dated 11.01.2008 was also filed by the fourth respondent questioning the bona fide of the petitioner. 7. An additional counter affidavit dated 11.01.2008 was also filed by the fourth respondent questioning the bona fide of the petitioner. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that though three sites were chosen, survey No. 28/1 was chosen for the present project, which was classified as "grama natham" and that the Draupathi Amman Temple was situated 150 metres away from the proposed site. The present site which was chosen, is 7 metres above the Mean Sea Level (MSL) whereas the other areas are having 10 metres and hence, this was best suited for keeping the pumping station and the sewage can be pumped through the pipeline to the treatment plant, Perungudi. It is also stated that the site surrounding the land was encroached by encroachers and it is in their vested interest, the present writ petition has been filed. It was also stated that survey No. 28/1 never vested with the temple and since the temple was granted funds for installing rain water harvesting scheme, as a test run, the rain water collected was routed to the low lying area and that is how, the water got collected in Survey No. 28/1. Since a compound wall was built as it was a low lying area, the residents have started claiming that the tank belonged to the temple. It is also stated that the encroachers around the temple cannot stake any claim over Survey No. 28/1 and the objections raised by the petitioner should be rejected outrightly. 8. Though the fifth respondent was impleaded as a party, they have not come forward to make any statement explaining their stand. It only shows that the Temple was not the owner of Survey No. 28/1. 9. Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a village natham cannot be vested with the Panchayat (in the present case, Municipality) and that it is a public land. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.K. Thillaivanam v. The District Collector, Chengai Anna District [1998 (3) L.W. 603]. He also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V. Swaminathan and others [ 2004 (3) C.T.C. 270 ]. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.K. Thillaivanam v. The District Collector, Chengai Anna District [1998 (3) L.W. 603]. He also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V. Swaminathan and others [ 2004 (3) C.T.C. 270 ]. Both the judgments were pressed into service for the purpose of showing that the lands classified as natham do not vest with the local bodies and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act cannot be pressed into service for evicting encroachers found in such lands. 10. We do not know as to how these two decisions are helpful the case of the petitioner. On the contrary, there is no material placed before this Court to show that the Tank belonged to the temple. Despite the temple being made as party fifth respondent, the Executive Officer of the temple has not come forward to make any claim over the so-called tank situated in Survey No. 28/1. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that the Survey No. in question is only classified as grama natham and, therefore, in the absence of any occupancy right by any person, the place will have to be considered as free from locating the pumping station. 11. Once it is held that the tank does not belong to the temple, the other objection regarding locating the pumping station in the Survey No. in question, will pollute the water in the tank, has also to be necessarily rejected. It has been explained in the additional counter affidavit that the water collected therein is only a collection of rain water and it is not a tank which was in existence over 100 years as claimed or it got formed naturally. Further, the apprehension that the pumping station, if located, will pollute the nearby water sources has also no factual basis. Since the scheme of locating a pumping station has been conceived in public interest and that the Municipality has also given approval for the same, we feel that the present writ petition is filed under misapprehension and not for any bona fide purpose. 12. Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court will stand vacated and the Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award cost on the petitioner though he was partially responsible in delaying the execution of the project.