Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned notice for removal of encroachment in proceedings No.Nil dated 13.09.2013 of the fourth respondent, namely, the Junior Engineer, Periyar Main Canal Section, Sub Division, I, Madurai. The fourth respondent has issued a notice for removal of encroachment in respect of S.Nos.15/1A1 and 15/B situated in Nelliyenthal Kanmai, Kodikulam II Bit, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. Seeking to quash the same as illegal and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to pass orders based on the explanation / objections made by the petitioner within the time frame, the petitioners are before this Court with this writ petition. 3. The petitioners are claiming that they are in occupation of the land in Malayalathanpatti village situated opposite to the Agriculture College, Madurai, on the eastern side of the National Highway. The same has been developed by them along the bund of Nelliyenthalpatti Tank and the said village belongs to Y.Kodikulam Panchayat. There are about 225 houses in the said village and the local authorities have provided them with basic amenities, such as, cement roads, street lights, water and electricity supply, besides an elementary school, Noon Meal Centre, Balvadi and ration shop and several of the welfare schemes have been implemented, like constructing latrines to the houses on receiving a share in the cost of such construction as owner's contribution. They claimed that about 100 years back, they have come from Kerala and settled in the village and out of 225 families, 40 Malayali families still are inhibiting the village. Their stand is that no part of the village has been encroached by them in the actual storage tank in the description of the said tank in the revenue records as if this village is situated within the area noted as 'Tank' in a total extent of 54.8 acres. The UDR scheme has clearly proved that no part of this village is lying with the actual storage area of the said tank. The UDR scheme has clearly proved that no part of this village is lying with the actual storage area of the said tank. While so, there was a notice under Form III of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 and the same has been challenged by Malayalathanpatti Grama Kudiyiroppor Nala Sangam before this Court in W.P(MD) No.1814 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioners therein to make a representation to the concerned authorities. 4. Questioning the Form III notice, the first petitioner herein moved this Court by way of W.P(MD)No.2866 of 2013 to direct the respondents to issue patta to the residents of Malaiyalathanpatti Village in Survey Nos.15/1A1 and 15/1B, of the petitioners village. On 27.02.2013, this Court disposed of the above writ petition by observing that the petitioners have to make representation before the Government and if and when such representation is made, the same shall be considered and orders would be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and while considering the representation, the Government shall grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's association. While so, as against the notice issued by the authorities in Form III, the first petitioner has moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14179 of 2013 seeking to quash the Form III notice of removal of encroachment passed by the third respondent dated 02.08.2013 in respect of Survey Nos.15/1A1 and 15/B situated in Nelliyenthal Kanmai, Kodikulam II Bit, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. This Court, on consideration of the case of the petitioner's association and the grievance put forth by them, has passed the following order: “3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is residing in the said property for the past several years and he is having documents to show his continuous possession of the said property. The first respondent has issued Form III notice directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment without following the due process of law, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007, which was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in T.S.Senthilkumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 771 , wherein the Division Bench has held as follows: “(f). We uphold the Act, while we provide for observance of principles of natural justice within the Act itself, as under. (i). When the officer of the Public Works Department publishes the notice in Form II in the notice boards of the offices of village Administrative Officer, Village Panchayat Office and the Water Resources Organisation, notice shall also be issued to the alleged encroacher to the effect that the survey indicates that the place in his/her occupation is an encroachment and secondly, the notice in Form II of the Rules may be issued. (ii). On receipt of the said notice, the encroacher may give his/her objections relating to the classification of the land in his/her occupation and the nature of the encroachment within a period of two weeks. (iii) Thereafter, the authorities shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, giving time to encroachers to remove the encroachment. 4. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is evident that without following the said procedures, as directed by the Division Bench to be followed before the removal of encroachment, Form III notice was issued with a direction to remove the encroachment on or before 12.08.2013. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before issuance of Form III notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and the same was not at all considered by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel, since Form III notice has been issued straightaway, as per the law laid down by the Division Bench, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to submit his explanation/objections and the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader, taking notice for the respondents, submits that the writ petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to treat the impugned notice dated 02.08.2013 as a show cause notice and submit his explanation/objection, and thereafter, the first respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 7. In such view of the said stand, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned notice dated 02.08.2013 as show cause notice and submit his explanation/objection before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In such view of the said stand, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned notice dated 02.08.2013 as show cause notice and submit his explanation/objection before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation/objection from the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench, referred to above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of explanation/objection from the petitioner. Till such orders are passed by the first respondent, status quo as on today, shall be maintained. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 5. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioners have approached the second respondent, namely, the District Collector of Madurai with explanations/objections to the show cause notice dated 02.08.2013 on 05.09.2013 and requested the authority to consider the same and drop the eviction proceedings and grant patta after change of classification of the land. In view of the fact that the village has been formed before 100 years and all the civic amenities and the schemes of the Government have been extended to their dwelling houses, they prayed for grant of patta to all the petitioners. 6. While that being the position, the fourth respondent herein, who is not a party to W.P (MD)No.14179 of 2013, has taken the power of the Chief Engineer and without looking into the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, has come out with the present proceedings, directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment made by them in their occupation. Otherwise, without waiting for their objections, they may proceed further and remove them by taking appropriate action. 7. The main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fourth respondent herein, who is unconcerned to the order of the Division Bench of this Court and not competent enough to decide about the grievance of the petitioners as directed by the Division Bench of this Court, has assumed the power of the Chief Engineer and issued the impugned notice. 8. 8. It is his further contention that the Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed the petitioners therein to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and to submit their objection to the first respondent, namely, Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, Water Resources Organisation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and on receipt of such explanation, the first respondent therein was directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. Neither the first respondent therein nor the second respondent therein has acted on the direction of this Court so far, even though the petitioners have submitted their objection/explanation to the second respondent therein and without making a copy to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department. Therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent, is not in accordance with law and as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court. 9. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, would submit that the schemes of the Government have to be implemented in the manner as contemplated in the Government Orders and there cannot be any kind of encroachment in the water bodies as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court. 10. Further, controverting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he would also vehemently contend that the petitioners, without having any legal right to continue their occupation in the water bodies and when their grievance is already looked into by this court and the authorities repeatedly and ultimately, now the law takes its own course by issuing a notice as prescribed in the relevant provisions of the Act, the notice issued by the fourth respondent cannot be questioned by the petitioners. 11. He would further submit that there is no representation made by the petitioners to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, Madurai, as directed by this Court to treat the notice issued on 02.08.2013 as a show cause notice, to which, the petitioners therein are entitled to make their objection/explanation and thereafter, the first respondent, namely, the Chief Engineer has to consider such representation. In the absence of any such representation, the petitioners have no legal right to come before this Court seeking for a direction as stated above and if such representation is made to the first respondent therein, the Chief Engineer - the third respondent herein will consider the same in accordance with law as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the various orders of this Court and also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.08.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.14179 of 2013, wherein, this Court has made a specific observation, considering the submission made by the counsel for the parties and taking into account of the stand taken by them and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to treat the impugned show cause notice dated 02.08.2013 as a show cause notice and submit their explanation/objection before the first respondent therein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of such order. On receipt of such explanation/objection from the petitioners, the first respondent therein was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court referred to above and till such orders are passed by the Chief Engineer, status quo as on that date, has to be maintained. 13. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, Periyar Main Canal Section Sub Division I, is a superior authority of the Water Resources Organisation of the Periyar Main Canal Division and this Court on a careful consideration of the provisions of the Act and the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (3) MLJ 771 in the case of T.S.Senthilkumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, while upholding the provisions of the Act and inter alia contemplated under the provisions to consider anything in a matter of encroachment, ultimately, directed the Chief Engineer to take note of whatever the grievance of the petitioners in their explanation/objection and consider the same in accordance with law. 14. 14. If that is the position, how the Junior Engineer of the Periyar Main Canal Division has come to such an action of initiating the proceedings without looking into the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court. It is true that under the Act, he is the appropriate authority to proceed further in the matter. When there is a judicial dictum laid down by the Court and a specific direction issued to the concerned authority in a manner to be considered, a junior authority, who is not competent enough, cannot proceed without the consultation of the Chief Engineer, who is the ultimate controlling authority of the Department. 15. The Junior Engineer has overstepped without consulting the Chief Engineer, when there is a specific direction to the Chief Engineer and he is bound by the order of the Division Bench of this Court. It is quite unfortunate in a matter of a public interest and when a large number of people are affected in proceedings initiated by the authority of the said Department, it is always open to the higher authorities to look into the same and that may be the spirit of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, giving such a direction to the Chief Engineer to look into the matter and on the contrary, the Junior Engineer has taken the power of the Chief Engineer and come out with the impugned proceedings. 16. In our considered opinion, though the Junior Engineer may be the competent authority, he is not competent to consider the direction issued to the Chief Engineer by the Division Bench of this Court and in a matter, after consideration of several factors involved in the case and further issuing a direction to the Chief Engineer, such a course adopted by the fourth respondent herein, namely, Junior Engineer, without considering the direction issued to the Chief Engineer by the Division Bench of this Court and without even looking into the explanation/objection submitted by the petitioners before the District Collector and the Government, cannot be allowed to be proceeded at this stage. 17. It is also seen that the petitioners have also not complied with the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in the manner as directed. 17. It is also seen that the petitioners have also not complied with the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in the manner as directed. The petitioners have been directed to submit the explanation/objection to the Chief Engineer only, but they have addressed a letter by way of objection/explanation to the District Collector, who is also a party to the order of the Division Bench of this Court, but in respect of the Periyar Main Canal Division, the controlling authority is the Chief Engineer, WRO of Madurai and any explanation/objection has to be addressed to the concerned authority alone and the failure on the part of the petitioners and consideration of the same by the Chief Engineer at this point of time have to be looked into, for which, the learned counsel for the petitioners explained that they have sent the representation to the Government, who is the ultimate saviour of the poor section of the people in accordance with the policy decision and the Government Orders in providing shelter to the people. Therefore, the innocence of the petitioners cannot be faulted with for the reason that they have not addressed the letter to the Chief Engineer concerned. 18. In the light of the above stated position, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is not in the manner as directed by the Division Bench of this Court and the proceedings initiated cannot be allowed to stand as far as the fourth respondent is concerned in view of the specific direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.08.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.14179 of 2013. 19. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 13.09.2013 is set aside by directing the petitioners to prefer their explanation/objection to the Chief Engineer, WRO, PWD, Periyar Main Canal Division, Madurai, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 13.09.2013 is set aside by directing the petitioners to prefer their explanation/objection to the Chief Engineer, WRO, PWD, Periyar Main Canal Division, Madurai, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such explanation/objection is made by the petitioners, it is incumbent on the part of the concerned respondent, namely, the Chief Engineer, to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, after giving all the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and on production of necessary documents in support of their claim and thereafter, decide whatever their grievance in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time, status quo as on today, shall be maintained. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.