JUDGMENT : Subramonium Prasad, J. (Prayer in W.A.No.1960 of 2018: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13/8/2018, passed in W.P.No.4779 of 2015. W.P.No.27234 of 2018 :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the proposal of exchange/permission as sought by the petitioner Company vide its representation dated 5/5/2009, 6/6/2009, 10/9/2009, 30/10/2009 & 11/2/2014, with respect to Government poramboke lands to the extent of 7.22.0 Ha (17.83 acres) comprised in S.F.Nos.237/9, 240, 249, 271, 279, 321, 25, 27, 40, 42, 4/11, 4/15, 5/1, 58, 37, 39, 67, 72, 143/8, 162/2 & 162/8 situate at Parpanachery, Keezhaiyur & Keezhapulvur villages of Ariyalur District and Silakudi Village of Perambalur District, respectively.) 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13/8/2018, passed in W.P.No.4779 of 2015, by which the writ Court, dismissed the writ petition, challenging the order, dated 10/2/2015, made in Na.Ka.No.A5/1849/2014, passed by the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur District. 2. Vide proceeding, dated 10/2/2015, the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur District, held that the appellant Chettinad Cements which had laid a railway line had encroached into waterway poramboke and vari poramboke which belonged to Government and the same is not permissible. The Sub Collector also held that in S.No.27, Keezhaiyur village, an area of 0.16.0 hectare is a pond poramboke land and by laying down the railway line, the appellant has damaged the natural waterway to the extent of 60 ft., length and 30 ft. width, which has affected the natural watercourse. The Sub Collector also held that the railway line has also affected the usual pathway of the owners of the land near the railway line. The Sub-Collector held that the railway line has been laid without any permission from the Authority. The sub Collector by the order impugned in the writ petition has directed the appellant to close the railway line and restore the land. 3. Facts in brief leading to the writ appeal are as under :- The appellant is a cement manufacturer. The appellant Company wanted to have a railway siding from their factory premises to the nearest railway station at Sillakkudi. The appellant states that it made applications to the State Government, for permission, to utilise the Government poramboke land, on payment of prescribed fee, as determined by the Government. The appellant Company wanted to have a railway siding from their factory premises to the nearest railway station at Sillakkudi. The appellant states that it made applications to the State Government, for permission, to utilise the Government poramboke land, on payment of prescribed fee, as determined by the Government. According to the appellant, permission was sought for, from the District Collector, to utilise the Government poramboke land by exchanging patta lands, for government poramboke land. 4. The appellants rely on a letter dated 27.12.2011 of the Section Engineer/P.Way/Office, Lalgudi. The letter reads as under:- “As per the instructions of Sr.DEN/North/TPJ, the P.Way yard arrangements consisting of Loading lines Rds.1 & 2, Engine escape line Rd.No.3 inside the factory limits of CCCL taking of from Sillakkudi Station has been inspected by the undersigned on 23.12.2011 & 24.12.2011. The siding taking off from challenge 616.00 from the C.L. of SLTH yard upto the : 6317.25(buffer) ends inside factory limits was also inspected by FOOT /PT on 23.12.2011 & 24.12.2011. A trial run over the siding from Sillakkudi was conducted at a speed of 20 kmph on 26.12.2011. It is hereby certified that the works have been completed as per approved drawings. After satisfying that the relevant provisions of IRPWM track structure are substantially complied with, the track is certified fit for goods traffic at a speed of 15 Kmph.” 5. Material on record further discloses that though there are exchange of letters between the Government and appellant, there has been no final permission granted by the Government approving construction of the railway line. 6. On a petition given by certain villagers stating that their access to the lands have been cut off, on 2/2/2015, a notice was sent by the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur. After exchange of correspondence, the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur, vide, order, dated 10/2/2015, directed the appellant, to remove the railway line. Material part of the order reads as under:- “As per village accounts, the lands are petitioners patta land. Except Serial No.17, all the other are within Keezhapazhuvur village survey No.4/11 and through the pathway have been reaching the plot. After exchange of correspondence, the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur, vide, order, dated 10/2/2015, directed the appellant, to remove the railway line. Material part of the order reads as under:- “As per village accounts, the lands are petitioners patta land. Except Serial No.17, all the other are within Keezhapazhuvur village survey No.4/11 and through the pathway have been reaching the plot. The land owners possessory rights have been infringed by the Chettinadu cements by laying railway lines digging 30 ft., in depth 60 ft., wide and the Survey No.4/11 in which the railway line is laid as per village account is government poramboke dig plot and without the permission of the government that has been encroached under railway line has been laid and the pattadhars right is infringed. Further serial No.17 the land is within M/s. Chettinadu Cement factory because the compound wall is raised the usual pathway is denied. Therefore, the pattadhar are unable to go to their land for agricultural purpose and also could not take their products and unable to move the material required for cultivation and their livelihood is affected and their pathway was encroached which is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, M/s. Chettinadu Cements who had laid the railway line in Keezhapazhuvur village, Survey No.58 an area of 0.18.5 hect. Parpananjeri Survey No.249 area 0.02.0 hect. and in 271 an area of 0.93.0 hect., and in survey No.279 area 0.10.0 hect survey No.321 area 0.10.0 hct. Keezhaiyur village survey Nos.27 area 0.16.0 hect and in survey N.42 area 0.04.0 hect. are the waterway poramboke and vari poramboke prohibited by the Supreme Court. The Keezhayur village survey No.27 area 0.16.0 hect is a pond poramboke land. In this situation, the natural waterway is destroyed to the extent of 60 ft., length and 30 ft., wide and a railway line laid the natural watercourse is affected and the agriculture is also affected. Therefore, the railway line encroachers in Keexhapazhuvur village survey No.5/1 area 0.12.5 hect., Keezhaiyur Village Survey No.25 area 0.04.0 hect and Parpananjeri village survey No.240 area 0.06.0 hect. are cart pathway poramboke land. The lands have been encroached upon under railway line laid the usual pathway of the ones near railway line is affected. For the above encroachment of land, no permission has been obtained from the government so far. As per the survey No.4/11 in the year 1985 it has been indicated as pathway. are cart pathway poramboke land. The lands have been encroached upon under railway line laid the usual pathway of the ones near railway line is affected. For the above encroachment of land, no permission has been obtained from the government so far. As per the survey No.4/11 in the year 1985 it has been indicated as pathway. Without the government permission, the poramboke land have been converted into railway line and the right of public and pattadhar ownership has been affected without any doubt. Therefore, M/s. Chettinadu cements as per village account and as per the possessory ownership of the pattadhars and taking into consideration the livelihood and basis rights of the pattadhars to enable them to do cultivation the railway line has to be immediately shut and the possession earlier to be restored in survey No.4/11 and the proceedings is ordered to be completed within 10 days. If by chance the earlier possession could be restored within 10 days and the pathway not available as a temporary measure within 5 days, M/s. Chettinadu Cements are directed to use as an interim measure the company patta land and order accordingly.” 7. It is this order which has been challenged, in W.P.No.4779 of 2015. Vide Order, dated 13/8/2018, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition, by passing the following order:- “(i). The writ petitioner, admittedly, an encroacher of the Government land, has not established even a semblance of right to grant the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the claim of the writ petitioner is rejected (ii). The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to evict all the encroachments of the Government poraboke lands, vari poramboke lands, pond poamboke lands and all other public lands in that locality within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii). The Superintendent of Police, Ariylur is directed to provide necessary Police protection to the respondents 2 and 3 to evict the encroachers from the public lands in all respects. (iv). (iii). The Superintendent of Police, Ariylur is directed to provide necessary Police protection to the respondents 2 and 3 to evict the encroachers from the public lands in all respects. (iv). The first respondent is directed to order for an enquiry or investigation to be conducted by an I.A.S level Officer in respect of the conduct of the officials of the District Administration and the officials of the Public Works Department in respect of their conduct, negligence, dereliction of duty, corrupt activities, illegalities and to submit a enquiry report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v). On receipt of an investigation/enquiry report, the first respondent is directed to initiate all appropriate actions against all the public servants and all other persons concerned under the penal provisions of law and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.” 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come forward with the instant Writ Appeal. 9. Pending writ appeal, petitioner has filed W.P.No.27234 of 2018, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the State, to consider the proposal of exchange/permission, as sought for, by the petitioner Company, vide, its representations, dated 5/5/2009, 6/6/2009, 10/9/2009, 30/10/2009 & 11/2/2014, with respect to Government poramboke lands, to the extent of 7.22.0 Ha (17.83 acres), comprised in S.F.Nos.237/9, 240, 249, 271, 279, 321, 25, 27, 40, 42, 4/11, 4/15, 5/1, 58, 37, 39, 67, 72, 143/8, 162/2 & 162/8, situate at Parpanachery, Keezhaiyur & Keezhapulvur villages of Ariyalur District and Silakudi Village of Perambalur District, respectively. 10. Since the issue involved in the writ petition and writ appeal relates to the rights of the appellant to construct the railway line from their factory to Sillakudi Station, cutting across the Government poramboke land and water course with the consent of the parties, the writ appeal and writ petition were heard together. 11. Sri.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge did not consider the facts in correct perspective. The learned Senior counsel would rely on the Resolutions dated 12/3/2010, 24/3/2010 and 26/3/2010, passed by the Pappanchery Panchayat, Keelapalur Panchayat and Malapaluvur Panchayat, respectively, recommending the exchange of poramboke lands within their limit. 12. 11. Sri.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge did not consider the facts in correct perspective. The learned Senior counsel would rely on the Resolutions dated 12/3/2010, 24/3/2010 and 26/3/2010, passed by the Pappanchery Panchayat, Keelapalur Panchayat and Malapaluvur Panchayat, respectively, recommending the exchange of poramboke lands within their limit. 12. The learned Senior Counsel would also place heavy reliance on the certificate dated 27/12/2011, issued by Southern railway, Lalgudi,(quoted supra) certifying that railway line from the factory of the appellant to Sillakkudi railway station has been completed as per the approval drawings. 13. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that railway lines were laid down and the proposal of the petitioner for exchange of lands is yet to be considered by the Government. 14. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the villagers had already filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.298 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur and the Sub Collector ought not to have entertained the petition. He would further contend that procedure prescribed under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for eviction of encroachers has not been followed. Sri.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel would also argue that the case of Villagers that they have access/easementry right to reach their own lands is completely wrong. It has been argued that the private respondents have been taking contradictory stand to suit their convenience. Sri.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel also relied on Board Standing Order 26A and contended that the Government have power to exchange land belonging to the Government for private land. 15. On the other hand, Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Advocate General – IX, assisted by Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that appellant has encroached Government poramboke lands, even before grant of permission by the competent authorities. It is submitted that the appellant should not have laid the railway tracks without the issue being settled. The learned Additional Advocate General states that the appellant could not have anticipated the permission and constructed the railway track. He argued that the appellant has constructed a railway track by digging up a pit to 30 feet deep and 60 feet wide due to which people in the locality are unable to reach their agricultural lands. He would therefore, support the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur. He argued that the appellant has constructed a railway track by digging up a pit to 30 feet deep and 60 feet wide due to which people in the locality are unable to reach their agricultural lands. He would therefore, support the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur. He further submitted that the Resolution by the Panchayat is of no significance and they have no authority to give any proposal or approve any exchange of Government patta lands to the lands offered by the Company. 16. We have perused the entire materials available on record. 17. It is not in dispute that the railway line which has been laid by the petitioner passes through Government poramboke land. Material on record does not show any permission granted by the Government to the appellant to use the Government poramboke lands. In the absence of permission, the appellant Company could not have assumed that they will eventually get permission and therefore, they should not have laid the railway track. They have therefore, laid the railway track at their own risk. Appellant cannot state that they had acquired any form of right before laying down the railway track. Communications of various authorities indicating that clearance can be granted or that proposals for exchange cannot be considered as a right being conferred no them. Petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel and or legitimate expectation in the absence of a right. Just because the appellant has altered the position to their detriment, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for a writ of mandamus to direct the State to consider the proposal for exchange of land. There should be a promise given by the government and the alteration of the position has to be on the basis of the promise. In the absence of any promise, Doctrine of Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. 18. The appellant, by representation, dated 5/5/2009 addressed to the revenue, Secretary to Government, Chennai, sought permission for laying of railway line from Sillakudi railway Station to their factory and for this sought permission, for utilisation of Government poramboke lands, situate in Keezhapaluvur, Keezhaiyur and Parpanacherry villages, further representations, dated 6/6/2009 and 10/9/2009 were also sent. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, through letter Nos.35349, dated 23/9/2008, has addressed the Collector, Ariyalur District, third respondent, to send a report in this regard, through the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration. 19. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, through letter Nos.35349, dated 23/9/2008, has addressed the Collector, Ariyalur District, third respondent, to send a report in this regard, through the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration. 19. Material on record discloses that the Chief Engineer, PWD, WRB, Tiruchirapalli, has written a letter dated 13.04.2010, to the District Collector of Ariyalur and Perambalur, stating that clearance certificate for construction of railway track to the factory of the petitioner is being issued, subject to the conditions and according to the rules of current Government orders, based on the report submitted, after inspection of the site, by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D, WRD, Maduraiyaru Basin Division, Ariyalur and Superintending Engineer, PWD, WRD, Central Cauvery Basin Circle. It is also very specifically mentioned that further constructions which were to be executed by the appellant were to be commenced only after permission is obtained. The relevant portion of the letter read as under:- “Clearance certificate is issued for the water resources and poromboke land belonging to the Government in Keezhapazhuvur village, Keezhaiyur village and Parpanacherry village in Ariyalur district in Survey Numbers – 249,270,271,321,42,37,39,67 and in Sillakudi village of Perambalur district in Survey Numbers 142/2, 139/B2 and 135, to carryout the work mentioned as found in the below mentioned paragraphs subjects to the conditions and according to the rules of current Government orders, based on the report submitted after inspection of the site by Executive Engineer, PWD, WRD, Maduraiyaru Basin Division, Ariyalur and Superintending Engineer, PWD, WRD, Central Cauvery Basin Circle. Moreover, those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 5 have to be executed only after the permission from the officers of this department and based on their directions.” 20. The Chief Engineer, PWD, has stated that most of the lands, sought for exchange are classified in the respective village accounts as “vari”, “kuttai” (pond) and “Odai” (stream). He has prescribed several conditions while giving the No Objection Certificate. The Chief Engineer, PWD has categorically stated that while laying railway line in the above lands, the petitioner Company should ensure that the water courses are not inundated and the natural flow of water should be maintained. 21. He has prescribed several conditions while giving the No Objection Certificate. The Chief Engineer, PWD has categorically stated that while laying railway line in the above lands, the petitioner Company should ensure that the water courses are not inundated and the natural flow of water should be maintained. 21. Vide letter, dated 30/10/2009, the appellant, submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai, requesting permission for exchange of Government poramboke lands for their patta lands, for laying of railway line, from Sillakudi Station to their factory, at Keezhapaluvur. Third respondent, in Rc.No.B/4386/2009, dated 19/1/2012, the Revenue Divisional officer, Ariyalur, through letter, in Rc.No.A4/2204/2011, dated 25/1/2012 informed the appellant Company about the inconsistency in the above proposal, as detailed below:- (i). The extent of patta lands offered by the Company for exchange of Government poramboke lands are lesser, since as per Government Rules double the extent of patta lands have to be offered in lieu of Government poramboke lands. (ii). The lands offered for exchange should be situated in the same place and contiguously. Furthermore, the lands should have road facility to enable the Government in future for various schemes. 22. The appellant without any permission has encroached upon the Government poramboke lands even before grant of permission by the Government. 23. Government poramboke lands are meant for the public usage and for the benefit of the public at large. The appellant has laid the railway track by encroaching the lands, classified in the concerned village revenue records, as vari poramboke lands, which are prohibited. Some of the lands are “pond poramboke lands” and in the course of forming railway track by digging to the depth of 30 feet, the natural water ways in these lands have been damaged, thereby hindering natural water flow leading to the curtailment of irrigation for agriculture. Furthermore, some of the lands to which exchange proposal is put forth by the petitioner company are “Cart track poramboke lands”. 24. Furthermore, some of the lands to which exchange proposal is put forth by the petitioner company are “Cart track poramboke lands”. 24. A perusal of the record would show that, the Joint Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, in letters, dated 1/12/2011 and 3/12/2012, the predecessor of the third respondent, in Rc.B1/4386/2009, dated 29/8/2016, has informed the Government to the effect that the request of the appellant, for exchange of Government lands, comprised in Keezhapaluvur village, in S.F.Nos.37, 39, 58, 67, 72, 4/11 and 4/15, Keezhaiyur Villlge, in S.F.Nos.25, 40, 42 & 27 and Parpanachery Village, in S.F.Nos.240, 249, 270/1, 271, 272, 279, 280, 321 and 237/9, thus totalling to an extent of Hec.7.22.0 (Ac.17.83 cents) may be rejected. The same was reiterated by the third respondent, through letter in Rc.No.B1/4386/2009, dated 28/6/2018, addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai, second respondent herein. 25. The facts demonstrate that, without obtaining proper permission from the Government, the appellant has encroached upon the Government Poramboke lands, which are classified in the respective village accounts as vari, kuttai (pond) and Odai (Stream). The appellant has encroached the Government poramboke lands even before grant of permission by the Government. Usage of Government poramboke lands, without the permission of the Government is impermissible. The Government poramboke lands are meant for the public usage and for the benefit of the public at large. 26. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel or legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in this case in the absence of any promise from the Government that lands would be given to them to lay a railway track. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monnet Ispat & energy Ltd Vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 , has observed as under:- "182. In my view, the following principles must guide a court where an issue of applicability of promissory estoppel arises : 182.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monnet Ispat & energy Ltd Vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 , has observed as under:- "182. In my view, the following principles must guide a court where an issue of applicability of promissory estoppel arises : 182.1. Where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is, in fact, so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not. 182.2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied against the Government where the interest of justice, morality and common fairness dictate such a course. The doctrine is applicable against the State even in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. However, the Government or even a private party under the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be asked to do an act prohibited in law. The nature and function which the Government discharges is not very relevant. The Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this doctrine are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. 182.3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in its application only to defence but it can also furnish a cause of action. In other words, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can by itself be the basis of action. 182.4. For invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is necessary for the promisee to show that by acting on promise made by the other party, he altered his position. The alteration of position by the promisee is a sine qua non for the applicability of the doctrine. 182.4. For invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is necessary for the promisee to show that by acting on promise made by the other party, he altered his position. The alteration of position by the promisee is a sine qua non for the applicability of the doctrine. However, it is not necessary for him to prove any damage, detriment or prejudice because of alteration of such promise. 182.5. In no case, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be pressed into aid to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. No promise can be enforced which is statutorily prohibited or is against public policy. 182.6. It is necessary for invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel that a clear, sound and positive foundation is laid in the petition. Bald assertions, averments or allegations without any supporting material are not sufficient to press into aid the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 182.7. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in abstract. When it is sought to be invoked, the court must consider all aspects including the result sought to be achieved and the public good at large. The fundamental principle of equity must forever be present to the mind of the court. Absence of it must not hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation." 27. In the present case, apart from the fact that there is no progress on the part of the State Government to give any land, the State Government in any event cannot not give any land, since the land sought for, is a water poramboke which cannot be assigned to a private party. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel as stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cannot be pressed in to service, forcing the Government or a public Authority to carryout something which is contrary to law. 28. The contention that the appellants are being evicted without following the due procedure is also not tenable. Section 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachments Act, 1905 reads as under:- “Section 6: Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc. 28. The contention that the appellants are being evicted without following the due procedure is also not tenable. Section 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachments Act, 1905 reads as under:- “Section 6: Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc. - (1) Any person unauthorizedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under section 3 [or section 3-A] may be summarily evicted by the Collector, [or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the ‘authorized officer’)], and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector [or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector [or subject to his control by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector [or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] may direct. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector [or subject to his control by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector [or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] may direct. (2) An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely:- By serving a notice in the manner provided in section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the Collector [or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or the authorized officer] may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and, if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Collector [or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector [or of any Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] for such period not exceeding 30 days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form of the schedule for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for the like period: Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under sections 183, 186 or 188 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same facts. [(3) Any authorized officer taking proceedings under this section shall make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar having jurisdiction.] Section 7 - Prior notice to person in occupation - Before taking proceedings [under section 6] the Collector [or Tahsildar, (or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any authorized officer or any officer of the Highways Department not below the rank of a Section Officer and not being an authorized officer) as the case may be] shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorized occupation of land being 5[the property of Government] a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against [under section 6]." 29. On receipt of the objection by the private respondents herein, notice has been sent by the Sub-Collector, on 2/2/2015 to the appellants. On receipt of the notice, the appellants send a reply on 9/2/2015. The parties have been heard and the instant order has been passed. Thus, there is no violation of the Principle of Natural Justice. The order of eviction has been passed after due consideration of all the facts and by an Authority, who is competent to pass the order of eviction. The requirements of notice has so far been complied with. A perusal of the order would show that order of the Sub-Collector is passed, based on village records and reports. 30. The contention of the appellant is that they are entitled to exchange of lands under the Board Standing Order cannot be accepted. The requirements of notice has so far been complied with. A perusal of the order would show that order of the Sub-Collector is passed, based on village records and reports. 30. The contention of the appellant is that they are entitled to exchange of lands under the Board Standing Order cannot be accepted. It is relevant to extract Board of Standing Order 26A, which read as under:- “1.When exchange may be made:- The grant of land, at the disposal of the Government for land owned privately may be made in circumstances such as the following:- (i) Where a river, waterway, cart-track, etc., has changed its course through a private holding, the owner is willing to relinquish the land covered by the actual course in exchange for the portion registered in the accounts as river, etc., (ii) for straightening the course of a channel, pathway, etc., or where a channel, pathway, etc., splits up a holding into two and it can be diverted along the boundary of the holding without any inconvenience to the public. (iii) where it is desirable to prohibit any cultivation in the bed of an irrigation tank or river and the private owner is willing to relinquish the land situated in such bed in exchange for land at the disposal of the Government; (iv) where small extents of private land not exceeding 25 cents in each case are required for public purposes such as minor improvements in irrigation sources or construction of chavadies, cattle-pounds , wells or schools; Note:- If any permanent structure is to be built on the land required it must invariably be required whatever the extent of the land or its cost may be. G.O.Ms.2853, Rev., d.19.9.39. B.P.Press 18, d.15.3.39. (v) where by an act of the Government, a private holding or any portion thereof has been rendered valueless or has been diminished in value and the private owner is willing to take land at the disposal of the Government in exchange for such holding or portion, as the case may be. (vi) where a private owner is willing to provide land for the extension of village sites in exchange for land at the disposal of the Government; (vii) where a private owner is willing to relinquish small extents of land not exceeding 25 cents in each case for the consolidation of his holding. 2. (vi) where a private owner is willing to provide land for the extension of village sites in exchange for land at the disposal of the Government; (vii) where a private owner is willing to relinquish small extents of land not exceeding 25 cents in each case for the consolidation of his holding. 2. Mode of exchange :- Such exchange should take the form of a relinquishment of the land privately owned and of an assignment subject to the usual conditions of the land at the disposal of the Government. 3. Encumbrance certificate to be produced:- Great care should be taken to see that the party who relinquishes any land has absolute rights thereto and that the relinquishment is unconditional. In cases where the value of the land to be relinquished exceeds Rs.100, the production of an encumbrance certificate by the party at his cost should be insisted on before the relinquishment is accepted. In other cases, an encumbrance certificate should be called for if there is any doubt about the tile of the person relinquishing the land. 4. Powers of sanction:- Where the value of the land at the disposal of the Government, which is granted in exchange exceeds the value of the land relinquished, the difference should invariably be collected from the party concerned. Where the assignment is made subject tot he usual conditions, the exchange may be sanctioned by the Collector, if the value of the land assigned does not exceed Rs.1,000/- and by the Board of Revenue if such value does not exceeds Rs.10,000/-. The sanction of the Government should be obtained if the value of the land assigned exceeds Rs.10,000/-, or if any departure is to be made from the usual conditions of assignment or if the case falls under section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) 5. Cancellation of exchange: if after a private holding or any portion thereof has been relinquished, it is found objectionable to assign the land at the disposal of the Government or if the assignment made is set aside on appeal or revision, the immediate superior of the officer who accepted the relinquishment or the authority which set aside the order of the assignment, as the case may be, may cancel the order accepting the relinquishment and restore the land to its owner.” 31. A perusal of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, extracted supra, does not give any right to the petitioner, to justify the action, of laying a railway line, without any permission. There is no right to ask for exchange of properties. In fact, the Government cannot even entertain such an application, for exchange of poramboke lands and especially water bodies with patta lands. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not shown that the State Government is vested with any such power to exchange water porambokes with patta land belonging to private persons. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and there is no right in favour of the petitioner, to ask for exchange of poramboke land, more specifically in water bodies, with their patta lands. 32. The Sub-Collector, Ariyalur has categorically found that the railway line has been laid on water way poramboke and vari poramboke. It is well settled that water bodies cannot be encroached and constructions cannot be raised on water bodies. The Sub-Collector has found that natural water bodies is destroyed because of the pit 60” x 30” dug by the appellant and all this has been done, without obtaining any permission. 33. In the result, Writ Appeal and Writ Petition fails and the same are dismissed. Impleading Petition in W.M.P.No.34570 of 2018 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition Nos.15665, and 31683 of 2018 are closed.