JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the fair order and decreetal order passed in E.P. No.44 of 2013 in O.S. No.138 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, dated 06.04.2015.) The Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 06.04.2015 passed in E.P. No. 44 of 2013 in O.S. No. 138 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 138 of 2003 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram was instituted by Sudar Selvakumar claiming the relief of declaration of ownership of the property described in Schedule B to its plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants in that suit, who are authorities of the Government, from disturbing his possession of that property. The Lower Court by judgment dated 30.11.2015 came to the conclusion that the said Sudar Selvakumar did not have any title to the property and hence rejected his claim for declaration. However, on finding that he was in possession of that property, a decree for permanent injunction was granted restraining the Defendants in that suit from disturbing his possession except by due process of law. 3. After the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 and the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007, made thereunder, the Government of Tamil Nadu circulated copies of the said Act and the Rules by Letter No. 11634/W2/2007-10 dated 10.10.2007 to all the District Collectors to enforce the provisions of the Act and had also given certain directives for the manner of its implementation. When the vires of that Act was challenged, the Division Bench of this Court in T.S. Senthil Kumar -vs- Government of Tamil Nadu [ (2010) 3 MLJ 771 ] upheld its validity and had issued the following directions :- “(a) The State shall scrupulously follow the provisions of the Act. It shall also ensure that all the District Collectors and other authorities, who are concerned with the observance of the provisions of the Act, strictly follow the letter, dated 10.10.2007. It shall also ensure that all the District Collectors and other authorities, who are concerned with the observance of the provisions of the Act, strictly follow the letter, dated 10.10.2007. (b) The District Collectors, while creating adequate awareness, may also enlist the help of Self Help Groups to disseminate the message that protection of water resources will actually promote the welfare of the villages and therefore it is in the interest of every citizen to make sure that he is not encroaching on a tank and to clear tanks and water bodies which are filled with garbage and to avoid dumping of garbage will automatically enhance and improve the public health of the community. (c) As already stated, the State will ensure that alienation of tank poramboke lands, citing public interest, shall not be made under Section 12 of the Act. The meaning and weight of the words "public interest" shall be implicitly borne in mind. (d) The State holds all the water bodies in public trust for the welfare of this generation and all the succeeding generations and, therefore, protecting water bodies must be given as much weightage, if not more as allowing house-sites or other buildings to come up on such tanks or tank poramboke lands, and water charged lands. (e) The State shall also bear in mind the provisions of this Act and the objects and reasons of this Act while issuing patta to persons who claim to have resided in the same place for a number of years and if necessary modify the relevant Government Orders to make sure that the implementation of these G.Os. are not in violation of this very valuable and important Act, namely Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007. (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 Organization, 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-III 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 the encroachers to remove the encroachment.” 4. While the matter stood as narrated supra, a team of officials under the Petitioner had surveyed the properties and identified the places which fell within the purview of the aforesaid enactment for the purpose of removal of encroachments. In that process, the said officials had planted survey stones and numbered the trees as nos. 15 to 24 in the property described in the Schedule B to the plaint in that suit. The Respondents, who are the legal heirs of the said Sudar Selvakumar, who had died subsequent to the passing of the decree dated 30.11.2005 in O.S. No. 138 of 2003, had filed E.P. No. 44 of 2013 before the Lower Court seeking arrest and detention of the Petitioner in Civil Prison, under Rule 38 of Order XXI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for disobedience of the decree passed in that suit. 5. The Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, in the order dated 06.04.2015 in E.P. No. 44 of 2013 was of the view that the Petitioner had not followed the procedure laid down by this Court in the judgment in T.S. Senthil Kumar -vs- Government of Tamil Nadu [ (2010) 3 MLJ 771 ] for evicting the Respondents and on that basis held that the Petitioner had committed wilful disobedience of the decree dated 30.11.2005 in O.S. No. 138 of 2003 and directed the Petitioner to be detained in Civil Prison for a period of one month on payment of process fees by the Respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 6. Heard Mr. M. Karuppaswamy, Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Ms. P. Kaviya appearing for Mr. N. Sekar, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from pleadings of the parties. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, it is apparent that the Petitioner had acted in good faith for implementation of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007. P. Kaviya appearing for Mr. N. Sekar, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from pleadings of the parties. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, it is apparent that the Petitioner had acted in good faith for implementation of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the planting of survey stones and numbering of the trees was in pursuance of the survey carried out under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007, and that the stage of dispossessing the Respondents from the property had not yet arisen then. It is also confirmed by Mrs. S.S. Anitha Shanthi, who was the then Assistant Executive Officer, Public Works Department, and is present before this Court today that the Respondents had not been evicted from the premises and the said fact is also unequivocally accepted by Ms. P. Kaviya, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. It was only when the Petitioner takes steps under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007, that the stage for issuance of notices to the Respondents under Form II and Form III, before evicting them would come into operation. That being so, it is really inconceivable as to how the Trial Court could have come to the perverse conlusion that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner has followed the procedure laid down by this Court in evicting the Respondents. In such circumstances, when the Petitioner has not committed any act of disobedience of the decree dated 06.04.2015 passed in E.P. No. 44 of 2013 in O.S. No. 138 of 2003, the Petitioner cannot be arrested and detained in Civil Prison. 8. It must also be pointed out that the Execution Petition itself would not be maintainable in view of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, which reads as follows:- "9. 8. It must also be pointed out that the Execution Petition itself would not be maintainable in view of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, which reads as follows:- "9. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or a rule or order made thereunder." That apart, the decree dated 30.11.2005 in O.S. No. 138 of 2003 does not create an absolute bar restraining the Petitioner from evicting the Respondents and it specifically provides that the Respondents could be evicted from the property by due process of law. As such, the Respondents could not be aggrieved when the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, were implemented despite the aforesaid decree passed in that suit. It needs to be emphasised that the Respondents, who do not have any title to the property, could not under the guise of that decree which only permits to continue in occupation till they are evicted by due process of law, to use it as a ruse to retain their illegal occupation of the encroached property indefinitely. 9. It would be evident from the aforesaid discussion that the Lower Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law and the impugned order passed is vitiated by patent illegality and material irregularity and the same cannot be sustained. As a consequence thereof, the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 in E.P. No. 44 of 2013 in O.S. No. 138 of 2003 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, is set aside and the Execution Petition, which is an abuse of the legal process, is dismissed. It is made clear that the concerned authorities shall proceed further under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007, to take necessary measures for evicting the Respondents from the encroached property in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.