Public water bodies are inalienable and cannot be converted for private use or gated access.

Shruthi Enclave, a residential project comprising 137 units in Coimbatore, was developed following a 2004 planning permission

In April 2004, the Public Works Department (PWD) issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) allowing the developers to form a culvert and pathway over the Sanganoor Canal, which ran through the site, based on findings that the canal was dry and lacked irrigation utility

However, in 2006 and 2007, the PWD cancelled this NOC, observing that the developers had constructed tar roads and compound walls instead of the permitted culverts, thereby blocking the water course

Consequently, the Local Planning Authority and Coimbatore Corporation cancelled the technical sanctions and building permissions in 2017 and 2018, leading to the issuance of demolition notices

The Shruthi Enclave Welfare Association and individual homeowners challenged these cancellations and notices, arguing they were senior citizens who had purchased the properties in good faith and that any enforcement should follow Section 56 rather than Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1. Whether the 2004 NOC granted by the PWD for forming a culvert and pathway over the Sanganoor Canal was legally valid

2. Whether the project could be treated as a "gated community," entitled to maintain a compound wall that restricts access to the water course and neighboring lands

3. Whether the demolition notices and permission cancellations were sustainable in light of admitted building deviations

The Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine, affirming that water bodies and their courses vest in the State as a trustee for the public and are inalienable, even if they have fallen into disuse or run dry

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittor District (2019) 4 SCC 500, which prohibits the conversion of water bodies for private use

Furthermore, it applied the Full Bench decision in T.K. Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) SCC Online Mad 9343, emphasizing the State's duty to protect and restore water courses

The Court also referenced Sections 54 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, regarding enforcement against unauthorized development

The Court found that the initial 2004 PWD NOC was fundamentally erroneous because a water course, whether wet or dry, cannot be surrendered for private exploitation

It noted that the developers further violated the NOC by constructing permanent obstructions (tar roads and walls) rather than the temporary culverts permitted

Regarding the "gated community" claim, the Court observed that the 2004 rules did not provide for such a classification, and the builders' nomenclature was not binding

While the Court upheld the PWD's decision to rescind the NOC for the water course, it took a balanced view regarding the residential units

Since the petitioners admitted to deviations in their 2017 representation, the Court determined that the Corporation must provide a specific list of violations and an opportunity for rectification before taking coercive action

However, it allowed the remaining 72 writ petitions in part by quashing the 2017/2018 cancellation orders and demolition notices

The Court directed the Coimbatore Corporation to issue fresh notices within four weeks detailing specific deviations and granting the residents reasonable time to rectify them in accordance with the law

The legal question regarding the applicability of Section 54 versus Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act was left open