Judgment :- 1. Challenging the orders impugned passed by the fourth respondent, these Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein. 2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. 3. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 4. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 5. The main ground on which these Writ Petitions is that the notices issued by the authority has no authority to issue such notices. Therefore, it violates the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the area encroached by the proceedings is an odai poramboke. Therefore, the authority who issued the present impugned order is an incompetent person to issue such notice and only the revenue authorities have the power to do so. In support of his contention, he garnered support in an unreported judgment made in W.P.No.9390 to 9395 of 2010 dated 23.02.2011, wherein the notice itself was quashed by the learned Single Judge. He would further contend that in the impugned orders, a reference has been made with respect to a Division Bench of the Principal Seat made in W.P.No.26722 of 2013 dated 04.12.2014, which according to the petitioners, has nothing to do with the present orders passed by the fourth respondent. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders are invalid in the eye of law. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the orders have been passed by the authority concerned is in tune with the direction of the Division Bench of the Principal Seat, wherein the authorities therein were directed to take necessary action in respect of all encroachments made over all the State. It is pertinent to point out that even as per the admission of the petitioners, when it is an odai poramboke, without second thought, such encroachment has to be removed immediately in order to protect the natural resources of the State. He would further contend that the impugned orders are only a notice and it is not an order and as per the said order, 10 ten days time is given to the petitioners the remove the encroachments. He would further contend that the impugned orders are only a notice and it is not an order and as per the said order, 10 ten days time is given to the petitioners the remove the encroachments. Above all, the impugned orders issued by the authority is empowered to issue such notice, which cannot be found fault with by the petitioners, 8. Heard both sides. By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up. 9. A reading of the impugned order would clearly indicate that the petitioners are treated as encrocahers and directed to vacate their encroached places within ten days. As far as the unreported order made in W.P.Nos.9390 to 9395 of 2010 are concerned, wherein, it is held that when Section 6 of the Act is not preceded by a notice under Section 7 of the Act, the proceedings initiated by the authorities will become invalid. Therefore, the learned Single Judge struck down the notice therein granting time to the authorities concerned to do as per law. In this case, admittedly, the petitioners themselves state that they have encroached in an Odai Poramboke. It is opt to mention in the case of Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2005 (4) CTC 1 , in paragraph Nos.6 and 8, wherein, the Division Bench has suo motu issued directions to the State to preserve the natural resources of the State. It went to the extent of stating that maintenance of ecological balance would provide healthy environment and enable the people to enjoy quality life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the present context, the natural resources has to be protected in all means. In the said order, paragraph Nos.6 and 14 are usefully extracted below:- “6. It is also relevant to state that day in and day out, many such petitions are being filed by way of Public Interest Litigation alleging encroachment into ponds/tanks/lake/odai porambokes, etc. in different parts of this State, more particularly in Villages. Having regard to the acute water scarcity prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu as a whole, we feel that a time has come where the State has to take some definite measures to restore the already earmarked water storage tanks, ponds and lakes, as disclosed in the revenue records to its original status as part of its rain water harvesting scheme. We also take judicial notice of the action initiated by the State Government by implementing the water harvesting scheme as a time bound programme in order to ensure that the frequent acute water scarcity prevailing in this State is solved as a long time measure. In fact, the classification as Ooranis, Odais and Lakes in the revenue records are all areas identified in the villages where the rain water gets stored enabling the local villagers to use the same for various purposes throughout the year inasmuch as most part of the State are solely dependent on seasonal rains both for agricultural operations as well as for other water requirements. Therefore, it is imperative that such natural resources providing for water storage facilities are maintained by the State Government by taking all possible steps both by taking preventive measures as well as by removal of unlawful encroachments. ........ 14. Therefore, we direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary legal steps to remove the alleged encroachments made by the respondents 6 to 12 as well as the petitioner over Odai Poramboke in Iyan Punjai S.No.100/1 at No.241, Tatchur village, Kallkuirchi Taluk, Villupuram District measure five acres and 70 cents. Inasmuch as this Writ Petition has come before us by way of a Public Interest Litigation, we take this opportunity to direct the Stage Government to identify all such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever illegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the relevant provsions of law for restoring such natural water storage resources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its original position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water shortage is ameliorated”. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the impugned orders, the petitioners cannot be directly sent out without issuing a show cause notice. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners has to be taken into consideration. Even a reading of the notice, it would clearly indicate that it is not that they have been asked immediately to vacate the premises. They have been given ten days time to vacate the premises. But the word is couched as “possession” has to be altered. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners has to be taken into consideration. Even a reading of the notice, it would clearly indicate that it is not that they have been asked immediately to vacate the premises. They have been given ten days time to vacate the premises. But the word is couched as “possession” has to be altered. Therefore, the petitioners will treat the present notices issued under Section 7 of the Act and the petitioners will be given 15 days time to reply to the show cause notices issued by the respondents, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The authorities will pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months, thereafter. Suffice to state that the impugned orders need not be set aside making it once again clear that the notices will be treated as a show cause notice and respondents will proceed as per the direction given by this Court. 11. With the above direction, these Writ Petitions stand closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.