JUDGMENT (Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.5 of 2002 dated 30.12.2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvarur confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.74 of 1999 dated 10.08.2001 on the file of the District Munsif Nannilam.) 1. The defendants, State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Collector, Thiruvarur District, the Divisional Engineer, Cauvery Basin Divisional Office, (PWD), Thanjore District and the Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Cauvery Basin Divisional Office, Kumbakonam, in O.S. No. 74 of 1999, on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam, are the appellants herein. 2. The said suit in O.S. No. 74 of 1999 had been filed by the plaintiff, Muthian, originally seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit property, and later after amendment, seeking mandatory injunction to restore the portion of 1 ½ cents encroached by the defendants to their original state and also for damages of Rs. 29,000/- and for costs of the suit. 3. The suit schedule property as stated in the plaint after amendment was punjai lands measuring 0.05 cents in R.S. No. 38-13, Nannilam Taluk, Thiruvidaimuruthur in Thanjavur District. The only amendment in the schedule was addition of the measurement of the land, namely, 0.05 cents. 4. By judgment dated 10.08.2001, the learned District Munsif, Nannilam, partly decreed the suit by granting the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, and by granting reduced damages of Rs.10,000/- as against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, but dismissing the suit with respect to the relief of mandatory injunction. 5. The defendants then filed A.S. No. 5 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Thiruvarur. The plaintiff did not file any cross appeal against the refusal to grant the relief of mandatory injunction. By judgment dated 30.12.2003, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants the filed the present second appeal. 7. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : a. “Whether the Courts below are right in giving the finding as regards the identity of the property subjected in the suit ? 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants the filed the present second appeal. 7. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : a. “Whether the Courts below are right in giving the finding as regards the identity of the property subjected in the suit ? and b. Whether the Courts below failed to see that the compliance of natural justice was observed while the lands are taken for the purposes of desilting and widening the river bunds ?” 8. Heard arguments advanced by Mr E. Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants/defendants in the suit and by Mr. A.E. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. 9. The suit in O.S. No. 74 of 1999 was originally filed seeking permanent injunction against the appellants herein from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Later, since the appellants had demolished constructions put up by the respondent in the adjoining land, which were admittedly a water body, the relief was amended to seek mandatory injunction to restore the constructions and to pay damages. 10. Both the Courts below had concurrently found as a fact that the respondent herein had put up constructions like latrine and septic tank in the land adjoining his patta land. The courts below had justified the action of the appellants in removing those constructions, as they obstructed the water body and had to be removed to facilitate desilting the water body. 11. The respondent had not challenged refusal by both the courts below to grant the relief of mandatory injunction. This would only imply that there is implicit acceptance that the constructions were actually over the water body. 12. The two substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal can be taken up for discussion together, since the facts are intricately intertwined. 13. The first substantial question of law is with respect to the identity of the suit property and the second question of law is whether due process was followed before demolishing the constructions put up, admittedly over the water body. 14. The courts have granted damages of Rs.10,000/- for the act of such demolition. I am not able to convince myself to uphold that grant. There has been no evidence produced to show the actual expenses involved. 14. The courts have granted damages of Rs.10,000/- for the act of such demolition. I am not able to convince myself to uphold that grant. There has been no evidence produced to show the actual expenses involved. Moreover, when the respondent had put up constructions like latrine and septic tank over a water body, he has to suffer the consequence of collateral damages caused during demolition of such constructions. I cannot fathom the attitude of the respondent in putting up a latrine and septic tank over a water body. Such constructions would only pollute the water body. It has been complained that the debris had been put over the roof of the house of the respondent. It is for the respondent to remove them. He must be fortunate that the appellants did not charge him with cost of demolition. Even the amount granted appears to be granted only to appease the respondent and as an apology for the denial of the relief of mandatory injunction. The grant of damages can be justified only if the relief of mandatory injunction had been also granted. There is no acceptable rationale in determining the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Such determination is arbitrary and lacks reason. I have no hesitation in setting aside the same. 15. The relief of permanent injunction can never be granted against the government. If the respondent lives within the rule of law, his possession will always be respected. But when he constructs a latrine and a septic tank over a water body, certainly, the appellants have a right to remove the same. The suit had been filed clandestinely to protect such illegal constructions alone. If the respondent violates the law, the appellants have every right to take him to task for the violation. The grant of permanent injunction without there being a justifiable cause also defies logic. I again have no hesitation in interfering with such grant. 16. I would therefore answer both the substantial questions of law that both the courts had correctly identified that the illegal constructions have to be removed, but had erred in granting permanent injunction without there being clarity over which lands such permanent injunction is granted. The appellants have a right to remove obstructions over the water body, and since they are not the patta lands of the respondent, I hold that proper procedure had been followed. The appellants have a right to remove obstructions over the water body, and since they are not the patta lands of the respondent, I hold that proper procedure had been followed. The respondent had been granted opportunity to remove the illegal constructions, and when he did not come forward, as both the courts below held, the appellants removed them to clear the obstructions over the water body. 17. In view of the above reasons, the judgment and decree of both the courts below are set aside and the second appeal is allowed with costs. 18. In the result: i). The second appeal is allowed with costs. ii). The judgment and decree dated 30.12.2003 in A.S. No. 5 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvarur is set aside. iii). The judgment and decree dated 10.08.2001 in O.S. No. 74 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam is set aside. The suit in O.S. No. 74 of 1999 is dismissed. iv). Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.