Authorities must conduct fresh surveys and inquiries before enforcing demolition notices under the Disaster Management Act.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 13.12.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Kundrathur, under the Disaster Management Act, 2005

The petitioner claims ownerhip over land in S.No. 14/1A1A, Moulivakkam Village, classified as "Ryot Nanjai"

However, the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar) contended in a counter-affidavit that the petitioner’s house is actually situated in S.No. 4, which is classified in the ‘A’ Register as "Government Poramboke Eri Karai" (water course poramboke), making it a highly objectionable encroachment

1. Whether the notice issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, for the removal of alleged encroachments on water bodies was legally sustainable without a fresh survey and enquiry

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to present evidence regarding the classification and location of her property before enforcement action is taken

The court applied Section 30(2)(iii) and Section 34(k) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which empower authorities to take measures for the prevention of disasters and mitigation of risks

Furthermore, the court upheld the principle of natural justice, requiring the competent authority to conduct an enquiry, provide an opportunity for the affected party to be heard, and ascertain clear facts before final enforcement

The court examined the conflict between the petitioner’s claim (Ryot Nanjai land) and the Revenue Department’s records (Water Course Poramboke)

It reasoned that while the authorities have the power to invoke the Disaster Management Act to clear water courses, such power must be exercised based on accurate factual findings

Given the "efflux of time" since the initial proceedings, the court determined that a summary enforcement without a fresh verification would be improper

The court linked the statutory power of the Tahsildar to the procedural necessity of conducting a fresh survey to resolve the boundary dispute and ensuring the petitioner is allowed to submit an explanation and documents to defend her title

The court ordered the authority to conduct a formal enquiry, allowing the petitioner to submit her explanation and supporting documents

The final decision regarding enforcement action must be made on merits and in accordance with law following the survey

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed