A waterbody cannot be confined only to the land where the water gets actually collected. It includes bund, foreshore area and water spread area also, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Allowing the Second Appeal filed by Madurai Collector, the court set aside the judgment passed by the Madurai Principal District Court that had confirmed the judgment passed by the Madurai District Munsif Court. The Principal District Court held that private persons derived title over the property located in the foreshore area of Vandiyur tank. The possession dates back to 1961.
A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed that Vandiyur tank was one of the major waterbodies in the city. In the revenue records, the property has been mentioned as a water spread area. The plaintiffs themselves have described the suit property as the foreshore area of Vandiyur tank.
The court observed that the suit schedule includes a water channel that was 150 feet long and 25 feet wide. The suit property is in Survey No.151/1 in Uthangudi Village. The plaintiffs sought declaration that they had perfected their title against the government by adverse possession.
The court observed that the Full Bench of the court had observed that waterbodies cannot be alienated. If the government itself cannot voluntarily part with a waterbody, it goes without saying that the plea of adverse possession cannot be made in respect of a waterbody. A water body has to be maintained as such for all times to come. Even if they have fallen into disuse, they must be restored to their pristine condition. This is what the doctrine of public trust and the doctrine of intergenerational equity mandate.
It was beyond dispute that Survey No.151/1 was not assigned in favour of the plaintiffs. No patta was given to them. They had only been in uninterrupted enjoyment of the property for over 34 years. Merely because the officials kept quiet or allowed the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit property, that would not necessarily result in the government losing its title over the suit property, the court said.
A waterbody cannot be confined only to the land where the water gets actually collected. It includes bund, foreshore area and water spread area. These are government poramboke. Their occupation itself is objectionable. Merely because the officials have been indifferent and have not taken action in time to secure the eviction of encroachers, that would not mean that encroachers would acquire rights therein, the court observed.
Published – February 28, 2025 11:22 pm IST
