JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, direction in the form of Writ against the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.05.2022; 09.01.2023 given by the petitioners by restoring the possessions and to grant patta to the lands in Survey No.182/2 to an extent of 20 cents at Door No.2 to 7, 3rdMain Road, Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District on the names for the respective portions of the petitioners.) 1. The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.05.2022 and 09.01.2023 given by the petitioners by restoring the possession and to grant patta to the lands in Survey No.182/2 to an extent of 20 cents at Door No.2 to 7, 3rdMain Road, Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District on the names for the respective portions of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners state that their family members were residing in Survey No.182/2 to an extent of 20 cents at Door No.2 to 7, 3rdMain Road, Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District from the year 1984 by constructing permanent structures. Their houses were situated 250 meters away from the Chitalapakkam Lake. Electricity Connection, Family Card, Voter ID were issued in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners were paying property tax to the Panchayat. 3. The petitioners further state that on 24.09.2020 the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department/Public Works Department issued show cause notice to the writ petitioners stating that their house had been situated in the “Eri Poramboke of Chitlapakkam Lake” and the petitioners were asked to submit their objections along with the documents, if any. The petitioners have given a detailed reply on 05.10.2020 stating that they are the absolute owners of the property and it is not Eri Poramboke as stated by the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the authorities have not verified the documents nor considered the objections raised by the petitioners and they have passed an order on 16.12.2020 asking the petitioners to vacate the place of dwelling and thereafter, the authorities have initiated action and evicted the petitioners from the said place by demolishing the constructions. 5. 5. The petitioners earlier filed individual writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20592, 20597, 20598, 20600 and 20602 of 2021 and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed final orders on 06.01.2022 recording the fact as follows: “5. The challenge to the notice in Form-III has been made in regard to the land purchased by the petitioners. The title document of the land has not been produced or shown to claim right of possession. According to the respondents, there is an encroachment in the waterbody. Therefore, action has been rightly initiated by the respondents. In view of the facts given above, we do not find any ground to question the notices in Form-III. However, the respondents would proceed further to remove the encroachments for demarcation of waterbody, which would be completed by 31.01.2022.” 6. The petitioners have filed Review Application and the Hon’ble Division Bench has disposed of the Review Applications on 01.02.2022 as follows: “2. We do not find the aforesaid to be a ground for seeking a review, because no error apparent on the fact of the record could be shown to confer jurisdiction on this Court for exercising the review jurisdiction. What has been complained of seems to be non-compliance of the direction given in the judgment, though contested by the respondents. The same cannot be a ground for seeking review, but can invite a contempt, if made out.” 7. The petitioners filed Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition Nos.223 and 224 of 2022 and the very same Hon’ble Division Bench passed orders on 08.03.2022 as follows: “5.We have considered the submissions and find that the scope of contempt petitions is quite limited. So far as the directions contained in para 5 are concerned, the respondents have complied because it is not only demarcation of the land of waterbody has been made, but finding encroachment therein, it was removed. If, according to the petitioners, demarcation was not properly made and thereby the land on which they were in possession was not falling under the boundaries of waterbody, they can take the remedy in accordance with law, but the aforesaid cannot be considered while hearing a contempt petition because of limited jurisdiction, as held by the Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 . The contempt petitions are accordingly, dismissed. The contempt petitions are accordingly, dismissed. However, it will not close the right of the petitioners to challenge the action of the respondents, if the demarcation is to be challenged so as the further action. Consequently, Sub Application Nos.68 and 69 of 2022 are closed.” 8. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioners were already evicted and the encroached portions were demolished by the competent authorities and the authorities had already taken possession of the property classified as “Eri Poromboke”. 9. After completion of all the process of eviction and after exhausting the remedy before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Petitions, Review Applications and Contempt Petitions, the petitioners have chosen to give a fresh representation to the authorities on 22.05.2022 and 09.01.2023 to reclassify the land and hand over the possession to the petitioners. Based on the said representation, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to consider the representation with reference to the claim of the writ petitioners for restoring the possession and grant patta in respect of the Survey No.182/2 to an extent of 20 cents at Door No.2 to 7, 3rdMain Road, Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 10. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that there is a confusion with reference to the classification made by the authorities. Therefore, further adjudication is required. The Hon’ble Division Bench also granted liberty to the petitioners in the Contempt Order. Thus, the representation again to be considered. 11. It is not as if the authorities have initiated action without affording an opportunity to the writ petitioners. A show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioners. They have submitted their objections regarding the classification of the land as Eri Poromboke and after considering the objections raised by the petitioners, the competent authorities passed final orders and thereafter, evicted the petitioners from the Eri Poromboke. Thus, the processes as contemplated were completed and the petitioners were evicted and possession was taken over by the Government Authorities. 12. Question arises, reopening of the settled issues now, whether it would cause prejudice to the interest of the protection of the waterbodies across the State of Tamil Nadu. 13. The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have time and again emphasised that the waterbodies are to be protected by the competent authorities. 12. Question arises, reopening of the settled issues now, whether it would cause prejudice to the interest of the protection of the waterbodies across the State of Tamil Nadu. 13. The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have time and again emphasised that the waterbodies are to be protected by the competent authorities. All encroachments in the waterbodies are to be removed in order to maintain environmental and ecological balance and to preserve water for the welfare of the people at large. Thus, encroachments in waterbodies at no circumstance be permitted and in this regard an Act was also enacted i.e., Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007. 14. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents furnished the certified copy of the revenue records, which would reveal that Survey No.182/2 is classified as “Eri”. Now the petitioners have submitted an application to reclassify the land from Eri Poromboke to patta land. Such a claim, whether can be entertained, is a question that arises. Reclassifications cannot be done in respect of waterbodies and more specifically, in the present case, all along the authorities have proceeded on the basis that the subject property is classified as Eri Poromboke and the petitioners were evicted. Possession had already been taken by the competent authorities of the Water Resources Organisation Department/Public Works Department. 15. Again issuing a direction to consider the representation would do no service to the cause of justice. However, the parties will be back again and again to the High Court in one way or other by filing writ petitions in order to achieve their goal even in an indirect manner. Such practices of filing writ petitions, at no circumstances be encouraged by the High Court. 16. Multiplicity of litigations are intended some times to achieve the goal in an indirect manner, which is to be deprecated. Once the petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and filed a Review Application and thereafter, Contempt Petition, the liberty if at all granted cannot be misconceived for reopening of the entire issues from the beginning. If all the petitioners were not satisfied with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, then they have a remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. If all the petitioners were not satisfied with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, then they have a remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Contrarily, again filing a writ petition and issuing a direction to the authorities to consider the representation may pave way for corrupt practises in Government Departments. 17. On account of skyrocketing of market value of lands in suburban and city areas, it is very difficult for the authorities to protect the Government lands. There are large scale encroachments and the authorities are finding it very difficult even to protect the waterbodies. Once it is found that a particular property is classified as waterbody and the petitioners are evicted from that waterbody and the learned Government Advocate also produced the revenue records, which would establish that the subject property has been classified as “Eri Poromboke”, there is no scope for re-adjudication by the same authorities and they cannot turn around and re-classify the waterbody as a patta land. Thus, the direction if at all issued would be a futile exercise and therefore, the relief as such sought for though seems to be simple in nature, cannot be granted in a routine manner. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.