A.Sacractice vs The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 14.03.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.31688 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.31131 & 31132 of 2022

1.A.Sacractice 2.K.Inbarasi 3.Kalaiarasi 4.A.Ezhilmaran 5.A.Pandian ... Petitioners Versus 1.The District Collector Thiruvallur District. Thiruvallur – 602 001.

2.The District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) CMRL Administrative Office, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Poonamalee, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

____________ Page 1 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.348/2021/A1, dated Nil/05/2022 on the file of the third respondent in respect of land and building (Adi-Dravida Natham land) situated at Door No.538 Trunk Road, Poonamalee, Chennai – 600 056 measuring an extent of 456 Sq.mts out of 34.44.0 comprised in Survey No.595 and 0045 Sq.mts out of 1759 Sq.ft comprised in S.No.759, Poonamallee Village, Thiruvallur District and quash the same.

For Petitioners :: Mr.M.S.Soundara Rajan For Respondents :: Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Advocate General Assisted by M/s.Rita Chandrasekar (for R2) :: Mr.P.Muthukumar, Spl.Govt. Pldr. (for R1 & R3)

ORDER

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

The lands comprised in S.Nos.595 and 759 of Poovirunthavalli

Revenue Village and Taluk, Thiruvallur District, were found necessary for

the Chennai Metro Rail project to be carried out by the second respondent,

namely, the Chennai Metro Rail Limited.

2. On inspection the respondents herein found that the petitioners,

namely, A.Sacratice and five others were in occupation of S.No.595 by

____________ Page 2 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

building houses and shops admeasuring to an extent of 456 Sq.mts and

similarly by building house in respect to an extent of 45 Sq.mts in S.No.759.

Therefore, notices were issued through the third respondent, namely, the

Tahsildar, Poovirunthavalli Taluk under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, requesting them to show cause as to why they

should not be evicted from the above lands. The respondents submitted their

objections to the show cause notice. However, by two notices dated

27.05.2022, in respect of each of the Survey Nos.595 & 759 orders were

passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905,

directing the eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present

Writ Petition is filed before this Court.

3. Mr.M.S.Soundara Rajan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioners would submit that even though there is an appeal provision

available under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, since in this

case, the very jurisdiction of the authorities to invoke the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, is questioned, the petitioners have filed this Writ

Petition straight away under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the

____________ Page 3 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in respect

of S.No.759, even though it is alleged that the petitioners are in occupation

of an extent of 45 Sq.mts, he would submit that the petitioners are not in

occupation in S.No.759 and that they have no objection whatsoever in

taking over the land in S.No.759, Poovirunthavalli Revenue Village and

Taluk and submitted that they are pressing the Writ Petition only in respect

of the impugned order in respect of S.No.595, Poovirunthavalli Revenue

Village alone.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relying upon the copy of

A-Register which clearly shows that S.No.595 as Adi Dravidar Natham and

also relying upon from the impugned orders itself, which also clearly

mention the classification of lands as Adi-Dravidar Natham would contest

that in view of the repeated pronouncements of this Court in respect of the

Natham lands, firstly, the said lands are not vested with the Government and

secondly would submit that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, cannot be invoked for the purpose of removal of the

petitioners from their lands. He would submit that because the Chennai

____________ Page 4 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

Metro Rail project is necessary and the public purpose writ large, the

petitioners are ready to hand over the lands, provided compensation in

respect of the land and building is duly paid to the petitioners. In support of

his submissions, the learned Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of this

Court in T.S.Ravi & Another Vs. The District Collector, Thiruvallur &

Others1, and the Judgment of this Court in M.Sivasakthi Vs. The District

Collector, Salem District, Salem and 3 Others2.

5. Per contra, Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Learned Advocate General

appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that firstly the land is

Government interest land and even though it is Adi-Dravidar Natham, the

petitioners were not granted Patta and so long as they are not granted Patta,

they are liable to be evicted from the land in question. He would submit that

even the earlier decisions, only recognized the right of the residence of

people in Grama Natham. But, however, in this case, the petitioners have

put up shops and have commercially exploited the land in question and were

receiving the rents more than Rs.70,000/- per month. Therefore, they cannot

1 CDJ 2018 MHC 8248 2 W.P.No.6992 of 2020 dated 07.03.2022

____________ Page 5 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

rely upon the earlier decisions of this Court relating to Grama Natham.

Once the petitioners have no title in respect of the land in question, the

authorities have rightly invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, 1905 and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

6. As far as the land in question is concerned, it is needed for the

Chennai Metro Rail project and by virtue of the provisions contained in the

project, even in respect of the persons who do not have title to the land,

appropriate compensation will be paid for the superstructure after making

due valuation thereof in accordance with the law. Therefore, he would

submit that there is absolutely no merits in the Writ Petition and would pray

for the dismissal of the same.

7. Ms.Rita Chandrasekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

second respondent placing reliance of the paragraphs 10 to 12 in the counter

affidavit would again reiterate the same submissions made by the learned

Advocate General and would submit that in any event, the petitioners will

____________ Page 6 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

be granted compensation for the superstructure put up by them. The learned

Counsel would submit that on account of pendency of the present Writ

Petition, the project itself is stalled and land is imminently necessary for

proceeding further with the Chennai Metro Rail project. She would submit

that so long as Patta was not granted to the petitioners, the petitioners

cannot have any right to claim compensation in respect of land in question.

She would also submit that even under the Revenue Standing Orders, even

if the petitioners being Adi-Dravidars (Schedule Caste Community) still

they will be entitled to the Patta only for an extent of 3 Cents, but, however,

in this case, they are in possession and enjoyment of an extent about 9 Cents

of land. Therefore, she would pray that this Court shall dismiss the Writ

Petition.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

perused the material records of this case.

9. At the outset recording the submissions made by the learned

Counsel for the petitioners, we dismiss the Writ Petition in respect of

____________ Page 7 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

S.No.759, Poovirunthavalli Village and Taluk and there will be no

impediment whatsoever for the respondents to forthwith to take possession

of the alleged 45 Sq.mts of land said to be in occupation of the petitioners

and no compensation whatsoever need to be paid or no procedure/

formalities or notice need be issued to the petitioners.

10. As far as S.No.595 is concerned, the revenue record, in the

form of A-Register produced before us clearly classifies the same as Adi-

Dravidar Natham. As a matter of fact, the said classification is not disputed

and the impugned order itself mentions the classification of the land as Adi-

Dravidar Natham which means that the Natham is meant for occupation of

the Adi-Dravidar (Scheduled Caste Community people). Admittedly, all the

five petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and the Community Certificate,

in respect of one of the petitioners is also produced. The petitioners 1, 4

and 5, three brothers belonging to the same family, the petitioners 2 and 3

who also belong to the same family are in occupation of an extent of 456

Sq.mts of the land comprised in S.No.595. They are residing in the rear

portions of the property, while they have put up shops and are collecting

____________ Page 8 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

rental income from the front portion of the suit property.

11. As a matter of fact, this Court, right from the Judgment in

Palaniammal Vs. Sethuraman Iyyengar3, has categorically held that the

'Grama Natham' land is the land set apart for the villagers to build houses

and such land does not vest with the Government. As a matter of fact, an

earlier Division Bench of this Court in T.S.Ravi and Anr. Vs. The District

Collector, Tiruvallur and Ors. (cited supra) has traced out the legal

position in all the earlier pronouncements and has categorically held that as

opposed to Ryotwari lands for cultivation purposes, Grama Natham lands is

habitation for the land owners to built houses and reside there and as a

matter of fact, under UDR scheme, these lands were surveyed and the

Government attempted to levy tax by a scheme known as Natham Nilavari

Patta and only a Thoraya Patta, for tax purposes were issued in respect of

Grama Natham. After considering the issue in detail, this Court has

categorically held that the Grama Natham land does not vest with the

Government and the Government has no paramount title to the land

3AIR 1949 Mad 814

____________ Page 9 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

classified as Grama Natham and thirdly, upon considering the provisions of

Section 2 of The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the Act cannot

be invoked for the purpose of eviction of people who are in occupation of

the lands classified as Grama Natham or to transfer the title in favour of the

Government by using such act.

12. As a matter of fact, in yet another recent Judgment in

W.P.No.6992 of 202, a Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us,

the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice is a member) has again reiterated the said

legal position. In view thereof, we hold that when the land in question in

Adi-Dravidar Natham i.e., the Grama Natham land which is meant for

occupation by Adi-Dravidars by putting up their houses, it cannot be set to

be Government interest lands so as to made over to the CMRL without

acquisition of title.

13. Further, the question of grant of Patta has been clearly dealt with

earlier Division Bench of this Court in T.S.Ravi & Another Vs. The

District Collector, Thiruvallur & Others (cited supra) in paragraph No.32

____________ Page 10 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

whereby it is held that the Patta does not confer title in respect of Grama

Natham, but is issued only under the 'Natham Nilavari Thittam' that is the

Natham Land Tax Scheme only for the purpose of levying tax and therefore,

non-issue of Patta by itself will not vest the Government with the title. The

very same Division Bench had also considered in paragraph No.27 that

merely because the persons residing have also built up shops and are using

the property partly by letting out the same as shops, the same again will not

make the land loose its character and will not confer the title of the

Government.

14. Thus, the questions raised by the Learned Advocate General and

the Learned Counsel for CMRL are no longer res integra and are already

decided by the earlier pronouncements of this Court. Therefore, we find

force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the

authority is completely lagging jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the

Land Encroachment Act. However, we also record the submission made by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are ready and

wiling to hand over possession of the property in question considering the

____________ Page 11 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

imminent necessity for the Chennai Metro Rail project, provided, they are

paid the compensation.

15. In view of the above findings, we partly allow the Writ Petition

on the following terms:-

(i) The impugned proceedings bearing

Na.Ka.No.348/2021/A1, dated Nil/05/2022 on the file

of the third respondent are quashed, in respect of

S.No.595, Poovirunthavalli Village & Taluk,

Thiruvallur District ;

(ii) It would be open for the respondent

authorities to negotiate with the petitioners and arrived

at the quantum of compensation and upon agreement

thereof the petitioners shall forthwith on receipt of the

compensation, execute the necessary documents and

hand over the possession in respect of the land in their

occupation;

(iii) In any event, it would be open for the

____________ Page 12 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

respondent authorities to acquire the land in

occupation of the petitioners in question, in S.No.595,

Poovirunthavalli Village & Taluk, Thiruvallur District,

in accordance with law;

(iv) No Costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.B.C, J.) 14.03.2023 Index : yes/no Speaking / Non-Speaking order Neutral citation : yes/no

klt

To

1.The District Collector Thiruvallur District. Thiruvallur – 602 001.

2.The District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) CMRL Administrative Office, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Poonamalee, Thiruvallur District.

____________ Page 13 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31688 of 2022

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

klt

W.P.31688 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.31131 & 31132 of 2022

14.03.2023

____________ Page 14 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis