JUDGMENT : V. Sivagnanam, J. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to issue of the two impugned orders viz., the first impugned order in Lr.No.Ko.3/2021/AE (Rasi) dated 29.10.2021 issued by the 4th respondent and the other impugned order in proceedings Na.Ka.No.6488/2021/B1 dated 28.12.2021 issued by the 6th respondent and quash the same and also to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.11.2021 objectively giving reasons for each of the ground surged therein and in the event of rejecting the petitioner’s representation by the 1st respondent, to direct the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner’s house without demolition as in the same location after getting equivalent lands from his patta lands situated adjoining the same survey no.67 of Mathiampatti Village from the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to issue of the two impugned orders viz., the first impugned order in Lr.No.Ko.3/2021/AE (Rasi) dated 29.10.2021 issued by the 4th respondent and the other impugned order in proceedings Na.Ka.No.6488/2021/B1 dated 28.12.2021 issued by the 6th respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.11.2021 and also allow the petitioner’s house without demolition as in the same location after getting equivalent lands from his patta lands situated adjoining the same survey no.67 of Mathiampatti Village. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter of the land measuring to an extent of 0.42 acres in Survey No.67 of Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, is classified as ”Government River Poramboke”, as per the revenue records. The petitioner purchased the land measuring One acre in Survey No.40/2 of Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District from Easwaran Gounder by sale deed dated 25.08.1995. During the purchase of the above said land, Government Poramboke lands in Survey No.40/1 and 40/3 and some portion in Survey No.67 were also taken possession from the said Easwara Gounder. The petitioner purchased the land measuring One acre in Survey No.40/2 of Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District from Easwaran Gounder by sale deed dated 25.08.1995. During the purchase of the above said land, Government Poramboke lands in Survey No.40/1 and 40/3 and some portion in Survey No.67 were also taken possession from the said Easwara Gounder. In the patta land in Survey No.40/2 a channel has been laid for irrigation purpose by the Public Works Department (PWD) for that no compensation had been paid to the fore-fathers of the petitioner's vendor and instead of that the PWD allowed 40 cents of land in Survey No.67 for cultivation to the fore-fathers of Easwara Gounder, which is now in possession of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not at all encroachment. 4. On the instigation of the 7th respondent, on 03.09.2012 eviction notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer (AE), PWD, to vacate the land in Survey No.67 within 20 days. Against the notice of eviction, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26461 of 2012 before this Court and this Court by its order dated 03.10.2012 directed the petitioner to treat the notice of the AE, PWD as show cause notice, and also directed the District Collector to decide the issue after giving opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. 5. In pursuance of the High Court’s order, the District Collector, Namakkal, conducted enquiry on the issue and rejected the petitioner’s claim by his order dated 20.03.2013 and further ordered eviction of the petitioner from the encroached portion. Again the petitioner had filed another writ petition in W.P.No.8954 of 2013 and in that writ petition, this Court by its order dated 18.02.2014, directed the petitioner to present an application before the Commissioner of Land Administration for further orders. In response to that, the petitioner gave representation to the Commisioner of Land Administration on 24.03.2014, who in turn, after considering the representation of the petitioner and after considering the relevant records passed the order on 14.01.2015. In that order, the petitioner’s claim with regard to assigning the land cultivated by him in the encroached portion of river poramboke was dismissed, but the Commissioner of Land Administration directed the Collector to consider his request with regard to the construction of a house in the year 2003, in the river poramboke. In that order, the petitioner’s claim with regard to assigning the land cultivated by him in the encroached portion of river poramboke was dismissed, but the Commissioner of Land Administration directed the Collector to consider his request with regard to the construction of a house in the year 2003, in the river poramboke. The District Collector, Namakkal considered the matter and passed the order on 13.11.2015, finally, rejected his claim with regard to the house constructed in the river poramboke. 6. Order of the District Collector was challenged by filing an appeal before the Government. The Secretary to the Government considered the matter and conducted direct enquiry with the petitioner on 10.05.2016. After completion of enquiry, he confirmed the order of the District Collector by his order dated 27.01.2017 in G.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue [L.D.3(2)] Department. The petitioner again challenged the Government Order, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.9300 of 2017 and the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 22.06.2018, dismissed the same. 7. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Slp.No.9841 of 2018, which was also ended in dismissal by order dated 06.08.2018. As against the Special Leave Petition, review petition in Rev.P.No.2631 of 2018 has been filed and the same was rejected on 05.09.2018. Again the petitioner has filed a Curative Petition No.405 of 2018 and it was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.10.2019. 8. Now, the 4th respondent has issued notice for removal of encroachment vide letter dated 29.10.2021, which has been challenged in this writ petition. Further, the petitioner has submitted a petition before the District Collector on 23.11.2021 for issuance of patta for the very same land. The Tahsildar, Rasipuram, rejected the claim of the petitioner, by his order dated 28.12.2021 in Na.Ka.No.6488/2021/B1, which was also challenged in this writ petition. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the land alleged to have been encroached by the petitioner, to an extent of 0.42 acres was originally permitted by the PWD for cultivation, to the petitioner's vendor's fore fathers. In lieu of the lands taken by the PWD for running a irrigation canal in the patta land in Survey No.40/2. Further, the High Flood Level of the river is far away from the actual water course from the river, as reported by the Executive Engineer, PWD. In lieu of the lands taken by the PWD for running a irrigation canal in the patta land in Survey No.40/2. Further, the High Flood Level of the river is far away from the actual water course from the river, as reported by the Executive Engineer, PWD. It is actually not a river, it is only a river bund. The petitioner constructed the house on the impression that it is his patta land. His claims before the High Court as well as the Government have been rejected at various point of time. Now, he pleaded that the 1st respondent may be directed to allow the petitioner's house without demolition as in the same location, after getting equal lands from his patta land situated adjoining in the same Survey No.67 of Mathiampatti Village. He further reiterated other grounds in support of his claim. 10. Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that there is no material evidence in support of the petitioner's contention that the river poramboke in Survey No.67 was in occupation of the petitioner's vendor's fore father, as permitted by the PWD. Further, the subject matter of land is a river poramboke. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of T.K.Shanmugam, Secretary, C.P.I.(M) Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in (2015) 5 LW 397 , issued directions with regard to water bodies. Further, the Government also issued G.O's with regard to encroachment in the water bodies and a direction has also been given for removal of encroachment and to restore the water bodies to its original position. The Government has considered the case of the petitioner and passed the order dated 27.01.2017 in G.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue [L.D.3(2)] Department, which is also confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the writ petition is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. 11. We have considered the matter in the light of the grounds raised by the petitioner and submissions made by the learned counsels. 12. The subject matter of the land is measuring to an extent of 0.42 acres out of a total extent of 1.29.5 Hectares in Survey No.67 of Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. The said land is classified as Government River Poramboke and it was encroached by the petitioner and he built a building in the year 2003. 12. The subject matter of the land is measuring to an extent of 0.42 acres out of a total extent of 1.29.5 Hectares in Survey No.67 of Mathiampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. The said land is classified as Government River Poramboke and it was encroached by the petitioner and he built a building in the year 2003. He got electricity service connection and paying house tax for the house. Previously, there was a difference of opinion between one Chandran, who is the 7th respondent herein and the petitioner. The said Chandran is the son of Ganesan. On the instigation of Ganesan, on 03.09.2012, eviction notice was issued by the Assistant Engineer (AE), 4th respondent herein and requested the petitioner to remove the encroached portion in Survey No.67, within 21 days. From this point problem started. 13. The petitioner, initially challenged the eviction notice dated 03.09.2012 by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.26461 of 2012 and this Court by its order dated 03.10.2012 directed the District Collector, Namakkal to treat the impugned notice issued by Assistant Engineer, PWD as a show cause notice and to decide the matter after hearing the petitioner. As per the direction of this Court, the District Collector, Namakkal, conducted enquiry and found that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 20.03.2014. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred the W.P.No.8954 of 2013 and this Court by order dated 18.02.2014 directed the petitioner to submit his representation to the Commissioner of Land Administration and further directed the Commissioner of Land Administration to consider the petitioner's representation. Who in turn, conducted detailed enquiry and directed the District Collector, Namakkal to reconsider the matter as a special case, vide order dated 14.01.2015. The District Collector, Namakkal, again confirmed the eviction notice issued to the petitioner and ordered to remove the encroachment by following the appropriate rules. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, Namakkal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Secretary to the Government. By order dated 27.01.2017 the Secretary to the Government confirmed the order of the District Collector, on the following grounds, “(i) The petitioner plea of land is highly objectionable water course Poramboke. This land is being classified as river Poramboke. By order dated 27.01.2017 the Secretary to the Government confirmed the order of the District Collector, on the following grounds, “(i) The petitioner plea of land is highly objectionable water course Poramboke. This land is being classified as river Poramboke. (ii)In the Government Order read (1) of the above, the resources of water courses Pond, Kuttai, Odai, Channel and water catchment area are to be protected and to avoid the encroachments in them, there is absolute ban to regularize the encroachments. (iii) In the Government letter as read in (2) of the above, it has been ordered to all District Collectors to take action to evict the encroachments in the water course portions and to take appropriate action to protect them. (iv) In the Government Order as read in (3) of above, it has been ordered to Revenue Department and Public Works Department Officers to take actions to evict the encroachments in the highly objectionable Government Poramboke lands such as Pond, Kuttai, Odai, Channel and river poramboke and to take appropriate action to protect the water course poramboke lands. (v) In the Revenue Standing Order 15 (38) (ii), it has been defined in order to protect all the water course poramboke lands including Pond, Kuttai, Odai, Channel and River Poramboke, when the above lands would assign or transfer, the Commissioner of Land Administration and Chief Engineer, Public Works Deparment ought consult with each other and pass Order. (vi) In the Government Order as read in (6) of the above, as per statutory rules 6 (1), the Tamilnadu Protection of tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, in the Public Works Departments Officers are permitted to evict the encroachers in Water Course porambokes in rule 4 (iii). (vii) The Madras High Court to the Writ Petition No.20186/2000 and W.P.No.29342/2000 has passed the Order on 27.06.2015 stating that the Water Course poramboke lands are to be protected and the encroachments in the Water Course poramboke lands should be evicted.” 15. As against the order of the Secretary to the Government made in 27.01.2017, the petitioner has preferred a W.P.No.9300 of 2017 before this Court. By an order dated 22.06.2016, this Court dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the petitions filed by the petitioner, i.e., Special Leave Petition, Review Petition and Curative Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also ended in dismissal. By an order dated 22.06.2016, this Court dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the petitions filed by the petitioner, i.e., Special Leave Petition, Review Petition and Curative Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also ended in dismissal. Since the claim of the petitioner with regard to the assignment of above said land in Survey No.67 of Mathiampatti Village, came to an end by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.10.2019, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 20.09.2021 for eviction of encroachment. 16. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam, Secretary, C.P.I.(M) Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in 2015 (5) LW 397 , has observed that the water bodies vest with the Government by complying the principle of public trust doctrine placing the Government in the capacity of a trustee. If the Government has failed to protect the water bodies, it amounts to breach of public trust and in such cases, the duty of the Government is more onerous to restore the land back to its original position and thereby the trust reposed on it. 17. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the writ petitioner that the encroached portion and his house far away from the running river water and that it would not be a good ground to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents respectively. As stated above, the claim of the petitioner was negatived by the Government and confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Again and again filing the writ petition with the same claim is misconceived and abuse of process of law and it is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.