Bed Of Watercourse Vests With State Regardless Of Current Flow: Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Encroachments In Coimbatore Housing Project
The Court said that the State Revenue and Public Works Department cannot permit private usurpation of water channels irrespective of current water flow or usage patterns.
The Madras High Court addressing a long-standing dispute involving 'Shruthi Enclave' in Coimbatore, has held that permissions granted by the Public Works Department (PWD) to convert a natural water channel into a private pathway and culvert were legally untenable, as the bed of a watercourse continues to vest in the State for public use.
The Bench reaffirmed that no authority holds the power to hand over water body land to private parties for residential development. Further that the mere absence of recent water flow or the lack of active agricultural activity in surrounding areas does not change the legal status of a water body.
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan observed, “Even assuming that there was no water running in the channel, the bed of the water course continues to vest in the State and cannot be handed over to a private party for their own use…As we have held that there is no question of handing over a water course to a private developer for development and conversion into a private pathway, the question of enclosing that pathway so as to prevent public access does not arise…”.
Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and V. Ravi, Special Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.
For the facts, Shruthi Enclave was conceived as a large-scale housing project on approximately 8.05 acres in Singanallur, Coimbatore, during the early 2000s. In 2004, the Coimbatore Corporation and PWD granted the developers permission to form a culvert and pathway over the Sanganoor Canal, which ran through the property, on the condition that they facilitate irrigation for downstream farmers.
However, following objections from a Farmers' Association regarding the obstruction of water access, the authorities cancelled these permissions in 2006 and 2007, subsequently classifying the residential units as unauthorised constructions.
The Shruthi Enclave Welfare Association first approached the Court in 2014 to challenge the cancellation of PWD permissions. This was followed by a batch of 72 writ petitions filed by individual homeowners in 2018 and 2019, challenging demolition notices issued by the Coimbatore Corporation after the planning and building permissions were formally revoked.
The Court observed that while the project was marketed as "Group Housing", there was no clear evidence that such a classification existed under the local rules at the time of approval. Crucially, the Court relied on established precedents to hold that water bodies must be preserved to maintain ecological balance and public utility.
A joint inspection report confirmed that while the channel currently lacked a functional inlet or outlet within the enclave, the land remained a designated watercourse in revenue records. The Court found that the initial 2004 permission to build over the canal was a fundamental error by the state officials.
The Court thus considering the present factual scenario, observed, “…If at all the negotiations qua the petitioners and the authorities lead to the conclusion that the petitioners would be permitted to construct a compound wall around the Enclave, it must be such that the water course stands outside the compound walls or such that there is suitable access at the entry and exit points of the water course into, and out of the Enclave…”.
“Thus, it is very clear that the Sanganoor Channel has been interrupted at a point even anterior, and after Shruthi Enclave, as the Corporation has itself laid roads in certain portions of the Sanganoor Channel in those areas. Thus, in all probability, there may be no possibility of reviving of the Sanganoor Channel as one continuous Channel”, the Bench noted
Accordingly, the Court set aside the 2018 demolition notices but directed the Coimbatore Corporation to issue fresh notices within four weeks, specifically detailing the structural deviations in the houses. The petitioners were granted reasonable time to rectify these deviations. Regarding the water channel, the Court upheld the cancellation of the pathway permission and directed that the water body area must remain free from permanent private encumbrances.
However, the Bench noted, “We opine that the legal argument relating to Sections 54 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 does not require to be answered in these writ petitions. This is all the more for the reason that there are admitted deviations in the development of Shruthi Enclave that representation dated 19.06.2017 filed by the petitioners stands testimony to. We however leave the issue open for resolution in a more appropriate case”.
Cause Title: Shruthi Enclave Welfare Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1368]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel, Saravana Sowmiyan, S. Arunachalam, S. Sithirai Anandam Advocates.
Respondents: V. Ravi, Special Government Pleader, K. Mahesh, Standing Counsel, C.R. Prasanan, Advocate.