JUDGMENT : M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. R. Udayakumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondents. With the consent on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. According to the Petitioner/Company, the agricultural lands in Survey Nos.61 to 68, 71 to 75 and 77 inclusive of the sub divisions situated in Aaliyur Village, Villupuram Taluk, Villupuram District measuring an extent of 34.31 acres and the adjoining lands in Thiruvandankoil Village, within Puducherry Union Territory measuring 18.47 acres admeasuring were purchased on various dates between the year 1995-1998 from various persons by M/s. Karur KCP Packagings Limited. The said owner was in occupation of the abutting poramboke vacant land in S.No.60/1 measuring 66 cents or thereabouts and paying the penal charges on issue of 'B' Memo and through this land (S.No.60/1) runs the main road into the factory and the agricultural lands, since 1999, prior to that also the same was used as the road/pathway by their vendors to reach their lands from the N.H.45-A leading from Villupuram to Puducherry for many decades. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the agricultural and industrial lands were purchased by the Petitioner/ Company, during the year 2011 and they are running their own manufacturing establishment, from the factory buildings purchased from M/s. Karur KCP Packagings Limited, constructed over an extent of around 200,000 sq.ft. in the patta lands. The remaining lands are being used for agricultural purposes with the adjoining poramboke land lying vacant. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Sight Saving Equipment and related products viz., Microscopes, Lasers, Intraocular Lenses, Micro Surgical Instruments and Pharmaceuticals and over 800 employees are on their rolls of employment of which 60% comprise of women and they are providing job opportunities directly and indirectly to thousands of the people in and around the locality. 4. It comes to be known that the land and the factory premises are situated close to the vicinity of Villupuram Puducherry National Highway NH-45A and the poramboke land has been developed fully with green cover by growing perennial trees of various species almost appearing like a small forest which is nurtured and maintained by the Petitioner and thereby providing a clean, healthy and unpolluted environment in and around the precincts of the Factory. Indeed, the employees of the factory and other agricultural workforces were having ingress and egress through the mud road passing through the said poramboke land (S.No.60/1) and later the erstwhile owners M/s. Karur KCP Packagings Limited had laid a proper bitumen road leading from the main road to the factory premises and agricultural lands and maintaining, since 1999. Neither the previous owners (M/s. Karur KCP Packagings Limited) nor the present owners (Appasamy Associates - the Petitioners) had never used the disputed area of land (60/1), for any gainful purpose, other than using a part of it as road, as it was used when the Petitioner purchased the same. 5. The version of the Petitioner is that the said poramboke land being situated on the National Highway NH-45A, some local persons were attempting to usurp, encroach and occupy the same at any cost. Sensing the danger and to protect the peaceful atmosphere, the previous owners, the Karur KCP Packagings Limited, in 1999, cordoned the area completely and put up a gate to protect and maintain a peaceful industrial and natural environment. Furthermore, the Petitioners also fear that taking advantage of the cover of trees anti-social elements and passers-by could pose a great danger to the current establishment's female workforce (numbering to 450), by way of verbal, physical and mental harassment, regularly trespassing into the lands and misusing the place for all kinds of vices, if the gates are open. Also, the Petitioner's fear is that the pristine atmosphere and the greenery of the said land would suffer damage due to possible littering of plastic and other garbage, rendering the entire area unhygienic and posing a great danger to the peaceful industrial atmosphere, by regularly trespassing into the lands and misusing the place for all kinds of vices. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that the Petitioner/Company has no intention to usurp or annex the land for any kind of gainful use, but, to protect the passage as main thoroughfare into the factory and into the agricultural lands and also to protect themselves and their own workforces from the prospective mental, verbal and physical harassment from anti-social elements. Further, they have no objection if the Government is inclined to resume the poramboke land for any other public purpose, if it may desire so. Further, they have no objection if the Government is inclined to resume the poramboke land for any other public purpose, if it may desire so. The manner in which the Petitioner is maintaining the said land completely with green forest, creating a lung-like green forest atmosphere for the public purpose. It is quite evident that the possession of the poramboke land is constructively demonstrated by putting land into responsible, sustainable and sensible use and development in consonance with the efforts initiated towards welfare measures and preservation of environment. 7. While this being so, the Special Officer cum Block Development Officer, Kandamangalam Panchayat Union/4th Respondent issued a notice dated 21.12.2017 as per Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 requiring the Petitioner to remove the encroachment, failing which, action would be taken for removing the same. The 4th Respondent had rendered the nature of encroachment as “Compound Wall”, which according to the Petitioner, is factually an incorrect one. In reality, there is no compound wall as such, but two side pillars with a gate embedded in it, along with wire-meshed fence. Apart from that, in the notice dated 21.12.2017, it was mentioned that the land in Survey No.60/1 is classified as “Pond Poramboke”, however, to the knowledge of the Petitioner, there was no Pond in existence on the date of their entry in the year 2011 with any water storage or water way, still or flowing water and if there existed one the same had by natural course rendered it into disuse for decades and gone out of existence long ago. The Petitioner had purchased the entire parcel, with a bitumen topped the main thoroughfare completely with a fenced gate. 8. The Petitioner had purchased the entire parcel, with a bitumen topped the main thoroughfare completely with a fenced gate. 8. It transpires that the Petitioner received the notice of the 4th Respondent dated 21.12.2017, on 28.12.2017 and immediately sent a detailed reply to the 4th Respondent on 09.01.2018 and again on 25.01.2018 and 27.01.2018 explaining the nature and purpose of utilisation of the poramboke land and also raising action mainly on the ground that after the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, being the Special Law on eviction of encroachment, all waterbodies in the State were brought under the purview of the Public Works Department under the said Act pursuant to which all waterbodies are to be surveyed with reference to the revenue records available with the Revenue Department for the purpose of preservation. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that Section 12 of the Act, 2007, enabled the State Government to alienate any part of land of tank poramboke land in public interest. Therefore, the 4th Respondent, according to the Petitioner, is neither the Competent Authority nor the Authorised Officer specifically appointed by the State Government to exercise powers under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and therefore, the notice issued by the 4th Respondent is clearly without jurisdiction. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the 4th Respondent, without considering the objections of the Petitioner and without conducting any enquiry as specified under Section 6 of the Act, came with his officials on 30.01.2018 and endeavoured to demolish the existing gate in an arbitrary and highhanded fashion and also he took an undertaking from the staff available in the factory premises under threat of forcible eviction as if he had consented for the removal of the structures and main entrance gate. 11. It is to be noted that the Petitioner was issued with Form 7 (Section 7 of the Act, 1905) notice dated 21.12.2017 in respect Survey No.60/1 of Aaliyur Village wherein the land was classified as “Kulam Poramboke” measuring an extent of 0.27.0 and the enjoyment is stated to be by way of constructing a Compound Wall and the Petitioner/Company is described as an “Encroacher”. For the notice dated 21.12.2017 issued by the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner had submitted his objection dated 27.01.2018. For the notice dated 21.12.2017 issued by the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner had submitted his objection dated 27.01.2018. Without considering the objection furnished by the Petitioner and passing a reasoned speaking order on merits, the 4th Respondent/Special Officer cum Block Development Officer had issued notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of the aforesaid survey number and requiring the Petitioner/Company to remove the enjoyment of the land on or before 30.01.2018. 12. Even though the Petitioner had submitted his explanation for the original notice dated 21.12.2017 issued by the 4th Respondent, since the same was not taken into account by the 4th Respondent and later, another notice/order was passed on 12.01.2018 requiring the Petitioner to vacate from the premises by removing the encroachments in question. For the later notice dated 12.01.2018, the Petitioner has a viable, effective, efficacious and an alternate remedy of filing an Appeal by approaching the Competent/Appellate Authority and to seek redressal of its grievances. Also that, it is open to the Petitioner/Company to prefer an Interlocutory /Miscellaneous Application and to seek interim relief thereof, under the Act. 13. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the Petitioner/Company will prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority/Appellate Authority as against the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the 4th Respondent. If the Petitioner/Company prefers an Appeal together with a Miscellaneous Petition/Interlocutory Application seeking interim relief thereto, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, then, the Appellate Authority shall look into the contents and substance of the Appeal as well as take into consideration Interlocutory Application seeking interim relief thereto and dispose of the same, within a period of four weeks thereafter, of course, after providing adequate opportunity to the Petitioner, Complainant and others concerned in the matter, by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice. It is open to the Petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleas before the Appellate Authority, who shall take note of the same and advert to the same at the time of passing the final orders in question. Till such final orders are passed by the Respondents, the possession of the Petitioner shall not be disturbed by any one. 14. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15. Till such final orders are passed by the Respondents, the possession of the Petitioner shall not be disturbed by any one. 14. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15. Before parting with the case, this Court also points out that it is open to the concerned authority to consider the Petitioner's request/prayer made in the Application seeking assignment of land, of course, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law.