The District Collector vs P.Sivasanmugam

W.A.No.3319 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.A.No.3319 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.27043 of 2023

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

2.The Tahsildar, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District. ... Appellants

Vs.

P.Sivasanmugam ... Respondent

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 30.11.2022 in W.P.No.28596 of 2022.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramaraj

Page 1 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

JUDGMENT

[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated

30.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.28596 of 2022.

2. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants before us. The

respondent filed writ petition seeking a direction to conduct an enquiry and

issue patta for S.Nos.905/17 and 905/18 measuring to an extent of 2745 ½

Sq.ft. Vacant site situated in Punjaithalaiyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk,

Tiruppur District by considering the representation dated 03.09.2020.

3. The appellants with reference to the representation submitted by the

writ petitioner conducted an inspection in the subject property and called for

enquiry on 24.08.2022 and 31.10.2022. The respondent was asked to produce

the Sale Deed, but he did not appeared for enquiry and not produced any

documents for verification.

4. The appellants perused the Government records and it is found that

the Natham S.F.No.905/17 measuring 100 Sq.mtr and Natham S.F.No.905/18

Page 2 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

measuring 171 Sq,mtr of Punjaithalaiyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk are

classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Site”. The respondent had

purchased the Government Poromboke Vacant Site to an extent of 2745 ½

Sq.ft. vide sale Deed of the year 2013 and his vendors did not have patta in

their names.

5. As per G.O.Ms.No.1971, Revenue Department dated 14.11.1988,

the “Natham Settlement Scheme” in Punjaithalaiyur Village of Dharapuram

Taluk had been implemented and completed in the year 1996, wherein, it has

been explicitly stated that the vacant lands available in the Natham Village

shall be recorded as “Vacant Sites” and can be assigned to the weaker section

of the rural population. The Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of

Land Administration, Chennai has issued a circular dated 07.08.2015 stating

that the lands set apart for habitation in the villages are classified as

Government Poromboke and termed as Natham Village in the revenue

accounts. Criterias are fixed to consider any subsequent claim over the vacant

sites identified during Natham settlement scheme.

6. The appellants have stated that the respondent failed to produce the

unbroken chain of documents from the year 1966 in order to establish title Page 3 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

and obtain patta for such lands.

7. The Geographical Survey of land had been conducted and

administered by the Revenue Department by the British Government very

long ago through survey and Re-Settlement Scheme and it is being followed

by the subsequent Governments. In the above Survey and Resettlement

Scheme geographically all lands are being surveyed and lands had been

classified as Ryot Lands, Assessed Lands, Un-Assessed Lands and

Poromboke Lands during Re-Settlement process. During Survey and

Resettlement Scheme work the Poromboke Lands had been classified into

various category as Natham, Pathway, Cart Track, Mandhai, Mayanam, Salai,

River, Cannal, Kalam etc. The Natham Poromboke is being used for dwelling

purpose and the Natham Poromboke Land is vested with Revenue

Department. Accordingly, during British Administration in the year 1912 the

Punjaithalaiyur Village of Dharapuram Taluk previously in Coimbatore

District, the old S.F.No.825 measuring 3.24 acres of Punjaithalaiyur Village

of Dharapuram Taluk had been classified as Government Poramboke

“Edakkadu Village Site” similarly the old S.F.No.822 had been classified as

Government Poromboke “Cart Track”.

Page 4 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

8. After the Re-survey and Re-settlement Scheme, the Tamil Nadu

Government issued a Government Order (Ms) No.525, dated 16.05.1979 that

the Punjaithalaiyur Village had been taken up under Updating of Registry

Scheme (UDR). During the implementation of above scheme all lands had

been surveyed and classified and updated as on date. This updated new

accounts had been handed over to the Tahsildar, Dharapuram for

maintenance on 31.12.1984. During the above said scheme the S.F.No.825

measuring 1.31.0 Hectare had been classified as “Government Poromboke”

which is “Eadakkadu Natham”.

9. In the year 1994, the Government made announced to settle the

house holdings of the public under “Natham Settlement Scheme” and

appointed a Special Tahsildar under this Scheme to issue patta to each and

every house holders in Natham Poromboke and which is otherwise called as

Village Natham for dwelling purpose. The above “Natham Settlement

Scheme” was completed in the year 1996 and this Natham Fair Adangal

Register had been handed over to the concerned Tahsildar for maintenance.

While the above Natham Settlement Scheme in S.F.No.825 had been splitted

Page 5 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

New Survey Numbers according to the households owned by the public and

issued “Natham Patta” to each and every house holders. Accordingly, the

vacant lands in Natham new S.F.No.905/17 measuring 100 Sq.metre and

Natham new S.F.No.905/18 measuring 171 Sq.metre of Punjaithalaiyur

Village in Dharapuram Talk had been classified as Government Poromboke

“Vacant Site”.

10. The Tahsildar is not the competent authority and not empowered to

grant house site patta six cents as per rules. The respondent had produced the

Natham Poromboke Vacant Site through sale deeds from third parties in the

year 2013 and the said purchase was invalid. In respect of the Government

land false documents have been created. Even under the settlement scheme

the Government has restricted to issue patta to maximum extent of three cents

only for the backward class people. Therefore, the appellants have mainly

contended that in the event of implementing the order impugned, it would

tantamount to assigning the land meant for the landless poor people to certain

well to do people and it will open the pandora's box for such illegal claims on

Natham Vacant Sites.

Page 6 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

11. Grant of patta to persons like respondent it will may encourage to

other ineligible persons or land sharks to encroaching on vacant Natham

Sites and claim ownership through falsely created documents and the

landless poor will be deprived of being granted with free house sites.

12. The Origin, History, Legal Principles and the judgements on

Grama Natham Lands have been elaborately considered by the Division

Bench in W.A.Nos.203 and 205 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024, reads as follows:

NATHAM SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT:

13. To authoritatively create land records distinguishing the privately

held lands, the lands kept for public purpose, and the lands available for

disposal by the State, a comprehensive exercise in the nature of Survey and

Settlement was needed. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide

G.O.Perm.1177, C.T&R.E, Department, dated 30.10.1987 sanctioned to

survey and settle the natham lands and agricultural lands used for non-

agricultural purposes from the year 1989. The guidelines to effect the natham

survey and settlement was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1971, Revenue (SS-II)

Department, Dated 14.10.1988. This guidelines classified the natham lands as

Page 7 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

follows:-

1. All private holdings in Natham are and agricultural lands set

apart for dwelling purposes will be registered as “Manai”.

2. Vacant site in Natham or Village site at the disposal of the

Government which are readily available for house site

assignment will be registered as “Vacant site Poramboke”.

3. All public properties such as “road, Street, Channel, Chavadi,

Hospital, Cart stand, Cattle Stand, Pathway, Threashing floor

etc., in Natham or village site will be distinguished and recorded

as road, street, channel, poramboke etc., in the records according

to the state on ground.

4. Lands belonging to various institutions such as “temple, Church,

Mosque, School with playground” etc will be distinguished and

recorded in records accordingly.

14. For the purpose of deciding ownership to the occupied site, the

same G.O. provided for following guidelines:-

1. The Special Tahsildar was directed to take up each holding as a

separate case and issue notices to owner (as indicated by the

Page 8 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

field staff in the land register) to be present at hearing.

2. The Special Tahsildar was further directed to satisfy himself

about the ownership of the property.

3. In case no assignment order has been issued by the Revenue

Department, the Special Tahsildar had to decide the ownership

of the property on the basis of enjoyment for thirty years prior to

the date of publication of this notification. For this, oral and

documentary evidence was allowed to be taken.

15. It may be noted that the above process was meant not only for

levying ground rent but also to survey the entire natham lands and to

recognize the ownership in respect of natham lands. This G.O has withstood

judicial scrutiny over the years and ownership in natham lands have been

recognized and the people are issued with natham pattas.

16. Hence it is stated that the Government verifying the ownership of

the lands is not new and has infact successfully implemented the above two

state wide schemes as early as in the year 1979 and 1989.

Page 9 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

17. At this juncture it may be noted that the State of Tamil Nadu is a

pioneer in settlement of habitations (grama natham), and most States of the

Union have not done such an exercise. Indeed, the Union Government has

come out with a Scheme called 'SVAMITVA' (Survey of Villages Abadi and

Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas) wherein property

cards are to be issued after survey of the houses / holdings and ascertaining

ownership. “Abadi” is nothing but grama natham in North India.

18. Since the natham survey was completed in 1997, and the appeal /

review period also ended, to deal with the arising issues of fresh applications

/ appeals / reviews, a detailed circular had been issued by the Commissioner

of Land Administration vide Circular No.K3/14710/2015 dated 07.08.2015.

It has the procedure for issuance of patta in Gramanatham that have been in

enjoyment of the claimant who has clear documentary evidence to prove the

same. It also has the procedural safeguards against the issuance of patta for

lands in which purported rights are newly and spuriously created by way of

registering documents in view of soaring land prices in the State. i.e. land

grabbing. This circular has been upheld in several judgments of this Hon’ble

Court. However, this Circular is declared unconstitutional by this Hon’ble

Page 10 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

Court on the ground that the lands classified as Natham are stated as the

Government lands in the circular, in W.P.(MD).Nos.9466, 11424, 9469, 9470

and 9471 of 2021, Dated 07.08.2023.

JUDGMENTS RECOGNIZES THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT

TOWARDS GRAMA NATHAM LANDS:

19. (a) In Corporation of Chennai vs. K.Narasa Reddy [(2012) 4

MLJ 646], this Hon’ble Court held that “17. The pathetic situation

prevailing in this part of the globe, as we observed is that, ignoring the fact

that Gramanatham land is a common village land, the greedy persons like

the writ petitioner in this case are indulging in activities, which are purely

commercial in nature. When the appellants themselves have accepted in all

fairness that patta has been issued erroneously and that they have initiated

necessary proceedings to cancel the same, we are unable to find fault with

the impugned action initiated by the appellants herein. This rampant

practice of misusing the Gramanatham lands in this part of the globe has to

be curtailed immediately, so as to protect the common village lands for the

welfare of the public in general. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu

and its revenue officials are directed to strictly protect the Gramanatham

Page 11 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

lands from being misused, particularly for commercial purposes.”

(b) The above judgment was relied upon by this Hon’ble Court in

W.P.No.29264 of 2016.

(c) In R.Shanmugaraj vs The District Collector, Tiruppur and

others in WP No.2855 of 2013, wherein the Writ Petitioner had sought to

forbear the respondents from commencing construction of a playground for

the use of Government Adi-dravidar welfare hostel students in a Natham land

admeasuring 1780 sq.mt, the Hon’ble High Court at Madras in their order

dated 01.11.2018 held that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to the relief

he sought for and also went on to record that even if assignment were to

be given for such a large extent of land, then such assignment itself

would be construed as invalid, unconstitutional and opposed to

Constitutional Philosophy and public policy, in view of the

Constitutional mandate on the part of the State to ensure that such

public lands and Government lands are maintained only for the welfare

of the public and in the interest of the public Administration. The

Hon’ble Court also drew a reference to the Circular issued by the

Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Land Administration in

reference No.K3/14710/2015 dated 07.08.2015 wherein it has been explicitly

Page 12 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

stated that “that the vacant lands available in Natham shall be recorded as

"Vacant Site" and can be assigned to the weaker sections of the rural

population. In this instance, the Hon’ble Court opined that assignment of

vast extent of land which is classified as "Natham Land" in favour of the

individual for their personal gain is certainly impermissible, leading to

the conclusion that unassigned Natham Lands are public lands, and

Government being competent to assign Natham lands for the welfare of

the poor, should ensure that such assignment should not be for personal

gains.

(d) In WP Nos.15692 to 15695 of 2014, this Hon’ble Court held that

“We do not find any merit in these writ petitions. A perusal of the impugned

order would show that as per the records, the lands have been classified as

circar porambke. It is seen that the Town Survey Register shows the

classification of the land as a circar poramboke. Even assuming that the

lands are Grama Natham lands, they can only be used for residential

purpose. Admittedly, in all these cases, the petitioners have put up

commercial buildings, Therefore, the authorities have rightly held that the

petitioners do not have any right over the properties, which are subject

matter of the proceedings.”

Page 13 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

(e) In another instance, in WP No.3741 Of 2011, the Hon’ble High

Court in order dated: 15.11.2018, wherein the petitioner had prayed for the

issuance of patta for the Natham land from which the temporary hut he had

put up was evicted, the Hon’ble High Court, after observing that the property

is a Natham poramboke land and that the Petitioner was also evicted from the

said property, held that the Petitioner has no right whatsoever, to seek for

issuance of patta, as a matter of right in Grama Natham lands.

(f) In WP No.7230 of 2014, this Hon’ble Court held that “11. This

Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner though claims title of the said

land based on the sale deed, he prays for an issuance of patta by the

authorities. The land grabbers in the city and sub-urban areas are falsely

creating documents including power of attorney, sale deeds etc. and thereby,

attempting to grab the private lands as well as the Government land. On

account of huge increase in land value, these crimes are frequently

witnessed by the authorities also. The revenue officials, registration

department are to be vigil in respect of maintaining the public lands. The

public lands situated within the Chennai Corporation and near by sub-urban

areas are valuable and such public lands are to be utilised only for the

public purpose and in the interest of the public and for future policy

Page 14 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

decisions, which are to be taken for the public welfare. The respectful

District Collectors and the Revenue officials must be vigilant in maintaining

such public lands. In the event of identifying any encroachment of such

public lands, immediate actions are to be initiated for eviction by following

the procedures contemplated………”.

(g) In R.A.V. Kovil Annayya Charities vs. The District Collector,

Tiruvallur and Ors. (W.P. No. 25608 of 2023), the First Bench of this

Hon’ble Court though quashed the notices issued under Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, had recognized as follows in respect of Grama

Natham Lands. “It would be clear that the Gramanatham or Natham

Poramboke can be classified into three types. Firstly, the Natham which are

inhabited by the villagers by putting up their house or being their pilakadai or

kollai etc., which is their absolute property and the Government does not

have any right, title or interest in the same. The second portion of the

Gramanatham or those portions which may be used for communal purposes,

such as street, thrashing floors etc. Once they are used for communal

purposes, by virtue of Section 2 of the Act, they become the Government

interest lands and as such, have to be termed as the other types of Poramboke,

in which, no individuals can claim any title and any encroachment can be

Page 15 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

removed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The third type is the

unoccupied portion of the Gramanatham land, in which the right is

vested with the Government to regulate its occupation. The Government

has the right to assign the unoccupied portion by ensuring the condition

of residence eligibility etc., and it is only in this context, the Revenue

Standing Orders, enabling the Government to impose conditions, assign

only 3 cents lies.”

GRAMA NATHAM IN THE ESTATE ABOLITION ACTS:

20. Having considered the Grama Natham within the context of Tamil

Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in the orginal Ryotwari Villages, it is

apposite to refer the Grama Natham lands under the Estate Abolition Act.

21. It may be noted that the estates (as it was called then) in the state

are usually of three categories namely Zamindari estates, Inam estates and

under tenure estates.

22. The Government decided to gradually abolish the estates and

convert them into ryotwari land with ryotwari assessment and accordingly

Page 16 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

brought in following legislation.

(a) Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,

1948. (Act No.26 of 1948).

(b) The Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari) Act, 1963. (Act No.26 of 1963)

(c) The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into

Ryotwari) Act, 1963. (Act No.30 of 1963)

23. The primary objective behind the passing of Act No.26 of 1948

was to repeal the permanent settlement which was in practice and for the

acquisition of rights of landholders in permanently settled and certain other

estates in State of Tamil Nadu and for the introduction of ryotwari settlement

in such estates.

24. While it is true that Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition

and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 did not have the effect of

transferring to Government title to house-site within Grama Natham

belonging to a person other than land holders, it is pertinent to mention that

the Act was meant to abolish intermediaries and introduce ryotwari

Page 17 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

settlement in such estates. Even though the Act is silent on collection of land

revenue from Grama Natham lands, presumably on account of them being

lands where no cultivation was done, the zamindaris had the rights to assign

vacant sites in Natham to ryots. Hence, the powers of the Government insofar

as it pertains to assignment of vacant sites in Natham to ryots, cannot be less

than that of the intermediaries, are therefore implied while not being

explicitly stated in the Act.

25. The Courts have previously ruled that Grama Natham lands are

shielded from being transferred to the Government, as stipulated by Sections

3 and 18 of Act No. 26 of 1948. However, it's important to recognize that Act

No. 26 of 1948 has surpassed its relevance, leading the Government to repeal

it through the Tamil Nadu Repealing (Third) Act, 2023. This raises the

question: does the repeal change the earlier stance that Grama Natham lands

do not vest with the Government, allowing these lands to now be considered

as Government property? Affirming such a question in positive would not be

prudent and would lack legal justification, hence the correct response must be

in negative. This suggests that the Government's intention behind enacting

Act No. 26 of 1948 was not to relinquish it’s duty in preventing the

Page 18 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

unauthorized occupation of Grama Natham land. To this end, the

Government has implemented various and details of the relevant schemes are

discussed below.

VIEWS / JUDGEMENTS THAT THE STATE HAS NO RIGHTS ON

GRAMA NATHAM LANDS:

A.CASE DETAILS WITH THE GROUND OF DISTINCTION:

26. This Court in various judgments has held that Government has no

rights in Grama Natham lands.

27. In the case of N.S.Kuppuswamy Odayar Vs The Narthangudi

Panchayat [MANU/TN/0303/1970 : 1971 (1) MLJ 190]:

“The mere fact that in the Re-settlement Register, a particular piece of land has been described as poramboke will not by itself establish title of the Government to the land in question”.

Distinction:

28. At the outset, the above judgment is not directly connected to the

issue of Grama Natham lands, rather, they pertain to declaration of right to

title to the tank and fishery rights therein. However, as the judgment relates

Page 19 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

to non-establishment of title of a land as belonging to Government merely

because it is described as poramboke in the Re- survey and Re-settlement

register, it is necessary to mention here that the Re- survey and Re-settlement

register is a Revenue document and does not indicate title. The Re- survey

and Re-settlement registers are created as an outcome of the Re-survey and

Resettlement process, wherein the land revenue to be collected for each

holding is printed in the Register. The correction of settlement errors is a

self-contained process, and where an error has occurred either in the name of

the land holder or in other aspects, there exists a mechanism to correct such

errors.

29. In the case of Palani Ammal Vs L.Sethurama Aiyangar

[MANU/TN/0191/1949 : 1949 (1) MLJ 290]:

Distinction:

30. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 10.01.1949,

placing reliance on Wadsworth, J., in Chinnathambi Goundan vs.

Venkatasubramania Iyer [(1939) MWN 207], have held as follows:

“Gramanatham is not communal property in the sense in which threshing

floor or burning grounds or other property is communal, that is property

Page 20 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

reserved for the use of the community. Gramanatham if it is unoccupied is

assigned from time to time by the proprietor whether it is in zamindari area or

in an Inam village and this practice was referred to by the learned Judge

(Wadsworth, J.) in Chinnathambi Goundan vs. Venkatasubramania Iyer

[(1939) MWN 207]. This, if it may so with respect, is the practice obtained in

the Zamindari area and also in Inam villages. The village in which the suit

site is situated is an Inam village and the owners of the village (Inamdars)

would be entitled to all porambokes except communal porambokes. Even in

respect of lands covered under the Madras Estate Land Act, it is held that the

Government can exercise its powers only to the limited extent to prevent the

diversion of village site poramboke from the purpose for which it has been

reserved and it was held therein that the village sites did not actually vest

with the Government.

31. If such is the position regarding lands which were under the control

of intermediaries’ before the abolition Acts came into existence wherein the

intermediaries(referred to as proprietors) had the right to assign unoccupied

Gramanatham lands, the rights of the Government in the case of

Gramanatham lands in Ryotwari villages cannot be less than that of the

Page 21 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

intermediaries, and the Government has the right to assign the vacant lands to

the houseless poor (a principle that is enshrined in the Revenue Standing

Order 21), that has been in vogue for more than a century now. While the

definition of Grama Natham as per law lexicon as “Ground set apart on

which the house of a village may be built” is clear, it behoves us to answer an

important question, i.e. the question of “Set apart by whom?” in the context

of setting apart of the grounds, as the grounds for the village site could not

have been set apart on their own. If the lands are purported to be set apart by

all individuals themselves when some individuals claim some portions of the

land for themselves, it will indeed be anarchy or worse, the rule of the

mighty.

32. In the case of Rengaraja Iyengar vs. Achikannu Ammal [MANU/TN/0492/1959 : 1959 (2) MLJ 513], the Hon’ble Court held as follows:

“10…..The title to a house site in a gramanatham is protected from transfer to Government by the operation of Madras Act III of 1905.

11. It is not necessary that, in order that the policy

Page 22 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

underlying Madras Act XXVI of 1948 be completely given effect to, house-sites belonging to private individuals (that is, persons other than the landholder) in a gramanatham, should be transferred to the Government. It is not part of the policy of the Act to transfer to the Government land in which the proprietor had no interest at any time.

Further, transfer of title of such house-sites to the Government would be virtually without payment of compensation because there would be no means of determining the part of the total compensation payable for the estate as a whole, which should be regarded as compensation paid for a few cents of house-site in a hamlet of the village. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the Act in relation to transfer of title as to a house site, such ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the owner, because no legislation should be held to be expropriatory in character if such an inference could possibly be avoided.

Distinction:

33. It is not the contention of the Government that title of all Grama

Natham belongs to Government. The Government does not dispute the title

of the legally owned Grama Natham site. It has been historically recognized

Page 23 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

and infact pattas have also been issued to the owners of Grama Natham.

34. In the case of State of Madras Vs Kasthuri Ammal

[MANU/TN/0531/1973 : 1974 (87) LW 531]

“The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the instant case pertaining to right to possession of a house site in Grama Natham poramboke in Minor Inam Village, have ordered as follows :

“In as much as Survey No. 74 is a natham poromboke, such portion of the suit site which is comprised therein must be held to be a house-site and the possession of which the plaintiff is entitled to cling to and resist all invasion. Such a right of the plaintiff can never be held to have been extinguished or curtailed by reason of Act XXX of 1963. It must also be stated with equal force that any interference or invasion with the said right of the plaintiff is always challengeable in appropriate proceedings before the civil Court.”....“The provisions as to vesting of lands under Section 3

(b) of the Act (XXVI of 1948) should be read so as to be in conformance with the provisions regarding the applicability of the enactmentsrelating to ryotwari areas. House-sites in gramanatham,

Page 24 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

therefore, could not stand vested in the Government under Section 3 (b) of the Estates Abolition Act."

We are of the opinion that this decision states the correct position of law and that what (applies to house-sites in gramanatham in estates taken over under Act XXVI of 1948 should mutatis mutandis apply to minor inams taken over under Act XXX of 1963.”

Distinction:

35. This facts of this case is that the Town Panchayat after promising

the compensation for land in natham had later refused by stating that the

property is a grama natham property. Further, the Government-defendants in

this case could not conclusively prove before the Hon’ble Court that the land

was properly surveyed and no notice was given to the party concerned by an

adverse survey. The Court deprecated this practice and held that the land

never vested with the Government.

36. In the case of Thillaivanam A.K.Vs The District Collector,

Chengai Anna District [MANU/TN/1720/1997 : 1998 (3) LW 603)

“In this often cited judgement to reiterate the point that Grama Natham lands do not vest with

Page 25 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

Government, the Hon’ble High Court have relied upon the judgements in Palani Ammal vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar [MANU/TN/0191/1949 :

1949 (1) MLJ 290] and Rengaraja Iyengar Vs Achikannu Ammal [MANU/TN/0492/1959 : 1959 (2) MLJ 513] and have ordered as follows :

“..Normally, this Court should not have gone into the dispute of title or possession. But in the present case, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents not only the classification as gramanatham but also the exclusive possession since 1954 has been admitted.”

Distinction:

It may be noted that the above Judgment was based on the statement by

Government which admitted the exclusive possession since 1954.

37. In the case of The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town

Panchayat Vs Swaminathan [(2004) 2 MLJ 708]:

“In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the admitted classification of the land being a 'Grama Natham', it is obvious that the land was never vested with the Government or the Town

Page 26 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

Panchayat. In as much as the petitioners and theirancestors were in exclusive possession of the lands in question for the past 40 years, the impugned order of the third respondent in cancelling the pattas with a view to evict them summarily at the instance of the resolution passed by the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further such a summary eviction is not permissible in law when the disputed question of title is involved for adjudication as laid down by the Apex Court in a number of decisions.”

Distinction:

It may be noted that this Judgment was based on the finding that the

petitioner had exclusive possession for the past 40 years.

38. In the case of K.Ilangovan Vs The District Collector,

Coimbatore (2014-1-LW430):

“Considering all these decisions of this Court and by considering the admitted factual position with regard to the classification of the land as grama natham, I am of the view that the respondents have got no right to interfere with the

Page 27 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land which is in occupation of the petitioner at S.No.1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District. The respondents have not stated in their counter that they are not trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's enjoyment and on the other hand, it is their case that the petitioner has encroached upon the lands, which is meant for granting patta to houseless poor and agricultural labourer. Only when the respondents are having any right over the land, they can take action against the petitioner to evict and to grant patta in respect of the said land to the houseless poor or agricultural labourer. When they do not have any right over the land as held by this court in the decisions as referred to supra, in my considered view, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. Accordingly, I find the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.”

Distinction:

In this case, the petitioner claimed the possession of more than 60

Page 28 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

years and this fact has not been countered by the Government with evidence.

39. In the case of T.S.Ravi & T.S.Sulochana Vs The District

Collector, Thiruvallur District (WP Nos.26234 & 26237 of 2018, dated

11.10.2018):

“In this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench had considered the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and had quashed the notices issued under the same in respect of grama natham lands. The judgement held that a clear view emerged from various decisions in the past “That the Government has no paramount title to the lands classified as Grama Natham and such lands do not vest in the Government. If that be so, the respondents herein could not have invoked the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905, to evict the petitioners.” and concluded that “We, therefore, conclude that the Government has no right to evict persons who are in occupation of lands classified as Grama Natham in the Revenue records by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, or any other enactment.”

Page 29 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

40. In the case of T.S.Ravi & T.S.Sulochana Vs The District

Collector, Thiruvallur District (WP Nos.26234 & 26237 of 2018, dated

11.10.2018):

“In this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench had considered the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and had quashed the notices issued under the same in respect of grama natham lands. The judgement held that a clear view emerged from various decisions in the past “That the Government has no paramount title to the lands classified as Grama Natham and such lands do not vest in the Government. If that be so, the respondents herein could not have invoked the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905, to evict the petitioners.” and concluded that “We, therefore, conclude that the Government has no right to evict persons who are in occupation of lands classified as Grama Natham in the Revenue records by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, or any other enactment.”

Page 30 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

41. In the case of A.Sacractice and Ors. vs. The District Collector,

Thiruvallur and Ors. (WP No.31688 of 2022):

“The Hon’ble Madras High Court in this Case has held that “….we hold that when the land in question in Adi-Dravidar Natham i.e Grama Natham land which is meant for occupation by Adi- Dravidars by putting up their houses, cannot be set to be Government interest lands so as to be made over to the CMRL without acquisition of title.”

Distinction:

42. These cases are about the invoking of Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, 1905 so as to avoid the payment of compensation to the

land holders. In these cases, the Government had acquired a portion of the

land from the petitioner by paying compensation. However, the petitioner’s

possession in other portion of the land was sought to be evicted on the

ground that the petitioner has commercial construction in the Grama Natham

land. The Court held that the commercial usage by itself would not vest the

Grama Natham land with Government.

Page 31 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

DISCUSSIONS:

43. Though these judgments of this Hon’ble Court declares the non-

vesting of Grama Natham with the Government, all those judgments are

distinguishable to the present interpretation on the ground that there seems to

be little or no decision on the legitimate ownership of Grama Natham lands

vis-a-vis the role of Government in verifying the ownership to such lands in

Grama Natham area to prevent the unjust/illegal encroachment and

enrichment by few individuals at the cost of society.

44. Grama natham, by definition, is the ground set apart, on which the

houses of a village may be built. The term ‘set apart’ itself lends to the

question, set apart by whom? It is set apart by the State acting on behalf of

Society as a whole. If the rights to the vacant lands in grama natham did not

vest in the State, by the very nature of the State, it will lead to a Hobbesian

anarchy. This has been recognized by this Hon’ble Court from the outset say

in Council vs. Jannavula Pedda Rengayya and Anr. (1903) 4 M.L.T. 440,

or The Taluk Board Dindigul vs Venkatarama Aiyar” (AIR 1924

MADRAS 197).

Page 32 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

45. Therefore, in order to protect Grama Natham lands, the legal status

of Grama Natham lands must be harmoniously interpreted in the following

manner.

(1) House site legitimately owned by any person and issued with

Natham Patta. The Government has no right to interfere in the

possession and dispute in this house site.

(2) House site owned by any person to which the Natham Pattas

are not issued so far. The Government for the purpose of

issuing Natham Pattas may require certain documents to

consider the occupier’s ownership. Upon verification, if the

authorities are prima facie satisfied about the ownership, then

the Natham Pattas can be issued. If the occupier is unable to

prima facie establish their ownership, then such occupier are to

be treated as encroacher for the purpose of following the

procedures prescribed under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment

Act, 1905.

(3) House site unoccupied and not owned by anyone. Government

has freehold in this type of land and can deal with in the

Page 33 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

manner provided under relevant laws including Revenue

Standing Orders.

(4) Procedure for dealing with residual cases of claim of natham

patta –Commissioner of Land Administration may issue a fresh

circular on the lines of the 07.08.2015 circular correcting the

lacunae in the same.

(5) Expeditious completion of computerisation: The public lands in

each grama natham must be generated in the computerisation

process and subject to social audit during the Grama Sabha

informing the public that the public lands are being held in

trust properly, and the disposal is also done in favour if genuine

beneficiaries or public causes.

46. In the present case, the Writ Court has relied on the judgment of

this Court in the case of A.R.Meenakshi and Others Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu and Others reported in 2013 (4) L.W. 76.

47. In view of the legal position elaborately considered by this

Division Bench in the case of S.Anbananthan, the case of the respondent

Page 34 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

deserves no merit consideration.

48. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 30.11.2022 passed in

W.P.No.28596 of 2022 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

[S.M.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 27.03.2024 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

Page 35 of 36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3319 of 2023

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

Jeni

W.A.No.3319 of 2023

27.03.2024

Page 36 of 36

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