Madras High Court
E.Sekar vs Constitution Of India on 1 December, 2021
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01-12-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
And
MP Nos.1 and 1 of 2008 and 1 and 1 of 2015
E.Sekar .. Petitioner in WP 29089/2008
Mrs.Nalini .. Petitioner No.1 in WP 30788/2008
Mrs.Ellammal .. Petitioner No.2 in WP 30788/2008
Mrs.Radha .. Petitioner No.3 in WP 30788/2008
Mrs.Ramani .. Petitioner No.4 in WP 30788/2008
Mrs.Salaja .. Petitioner No.5 in WP 30788/2008
vs.
The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram. .. R-1 in both WPs
1/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
The Thasildar,
Chengalpattu Taluk. .. R-2 in both WPs
The Project Officer,
SIPCOT, Siruseri,
Chingleput Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. .. R-3 in WP No.30788/2008
The Project Officer,
Small Industries Corporation (SIDCO),
Siruseri, Chingleput Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. .. R-3 in WP No.29089/2008
The Revenue Inspector,
Kelambakkam,
Chingleput Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. .. R-4 in both WPs
(R-4 impleaded vide order of
Court made in MP No.2 of 2008 in
WP 29089 of 2008 dated 28.04.2011)
WP No.28089 of 2008 is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent dated
05.11.2008 issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments
Act 1905 with regard to petitioner's Grama Natham Land situate in Survey
No.40/1, having an extent of 0.76.0 (1.17) acres in 34 Egattur, Chinglepet
Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quash the same and further direct the
respondents not to interfere in any manner in the aforesaid land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
WP No.30788 of 2008 is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the fourth respondent dated
05.11.2008 issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments
Act 1905 with regard to petitioner's Grama Natham Land situate in Survey
No.40/1, having an extent of 1.17 (0.76) acres in 34 Egattur, Chinglepet
Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quash the same and further direct the
respondents not to interfere in any manner in the aforesaid land.
For Petitioner in WP 29089/08
and for petitioners in
WP 30788/08 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
For Respondents-1,2&4 in : Mr.M.Rajendran,
in both WPs Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondent-3 in both WPs: Ms.Sudharshana Sundar
COMMON ORDER
The notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachments Act, 1905, is under challenge in these writ petitions.
2. The notice impugned states that the petitioners are
encroachers of Government land and therefore, an opportunity is provided to
appear in person for submitting explanations or to submit written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
explanations for the purpose of considering the case and continue the
process under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act,
1905. The said notice is under challenge in both the writ petitions. The
petitioners though submitted explanations on 24.11.2008, filed these writ
petitions challenging the notice itself.
3. No writ petition needs to be entertained in respect of the
show cause notice issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachments Act, 1905 as an opportunity is provided. In these cases, the
petitioners submit their explanations on 24.11.2008 and however filed writ
petitions and the same may be entertained against the show cause notice
only if such notice is issued by the incompetent Authority having no
jurisdiction by directly hitting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachments Act, 1905 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short] or if
any allegations of mala fides are raised against the Public Officials. Even in
case of raising an allegation of mala fide, the Authority against whom such
an allegation raised must be impleaded as a party respondent in his personal
capacity and in all circumstances, the Noticee is expected to avail the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
opportunity for the purpose of defending the case. In the abovesaid cases,
the petitioners have not waited for the response.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners on merits contended
that the subject property belongs to the petitioners and originally, the
property was in occupation of the predecessors for a long period and the
petitioners continue to be in possession of the subject property. Thus, the
property rights of the petitioners cannot taken away by the respondents by
issuing the impugned notice under the Act.
5. The petitioners state that the land in question is classified as
'Grama Natham' and they are in possession of the property for a
considerable length of time. Thus, the said land cannot be construed as a
'Government Poramboke Land' and therefore, the initiation of proceedings
under the Act is untenable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners is of an opinion that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
'Grama Natham Lands' do not belong to the Government and it vests with
the person, who is in possession. Thus, in these cases, the petitioners are in
possession of 'Grama Natham Lands' and therefore, they are entitled to
continue their possession in the said subject property. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the proceedings of the Tahsildar,
Chingleput, which was addressed to the District Collector. It is an internal
communication between the Tahsildar and the District Collector and the
Tahsildar submitted a factual report in respect of the subject property.
Relying on the internal communication relating to the facts of the case, the
learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the petitioners are entitled
to continue their possession in the subject property and therefore, the notice
itself is untenable.
7. During the pendency of the present writ petitions, the
petitioner filed WP No.8788 of 2009, seeking a direction to exclude the
petitioners' land from the portion of G.O.Ms.No.10, Revenue Department
dated 03.01.2002, through which the lands would be assigned in favour of
SIDCO/SIPCOT for development of an Industrial Area in that locality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
8. This Court passed an order on 17.02.2011 in WP No.8788 of
2009, directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners
and to provide an opportunity, enabling the petitioners to defend their case.
The petitioners had already issued with a notice under the provisions of the
Land Encroachment Act. The petitioners have submitted their explanations.
But, simultaneously approached this Court by way of filing the present writ
petitions and obtained an interim order.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment
in the case of A.K.Thillaivanam and Another vs. The District Collector
and Others [1998 (3) LW 603], wherein in paragraphs 22, 23, 27 to 29,
this Court observed as under:-
“22. As seen from the portion extracted from
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is
admitted that the land is a Grama natham and it
has been in exclusive possession of the
petitioners and their father since 1954.
23. Being a grama natham, it is obvious
that the land in question had never vested with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
the Government. Section 2 of the Land
Encroachment Act. 1905 excludes gramanatham
owned as house site. As such the provisions of the
Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked
by the respondents in respect of the land in
question.
27. Thus it is obvious, the admitted
classification of the land being a gramanatham,
the land was never vested with the respondents
nor they could take action under the Land
Encroachment Act or any other enactment. The
petitioners state they have exclusive right, title,
possession, since 1954 onwards. The respondents
have no right to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the land and their
action in giving a complaint for alleged offence
under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is total
misconception.
28. Incidentally, the respondents in the
counter have stated that it is a village site.
Further, it is to be pointed out that even
according to the respondent, it is a gramanatham
and the respondents never had right nor the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
gramanatham had ever vested with the
respondents. In the circumstances, the petitioner
is entitled the relief of Mandamus as prayed for.
29. 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. As such the
petitioners have prescribed title to the land and
the same cannot be interfered by the respondents
either under Land Encroachment Act or under
the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act.”
10. In the case of The Executive Officer, Kadathur vs.
V.Swaminathan [2004 (3) CTC 270], wherein in paragraphs 5, 9 to 13,
this Court observed as under:-
“5. While dealing with the contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the appellant,
the matter has to be dealt with in the light of the
nature and classification of the land which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
under occupation of the petitioners. There is no
dispute that the land under occupation of the
petitioners is classified as ‘Natham’ or otherwise
called as ‘Grama Natham’ land and the
petitioners were granted pattas as early as in the
year 1992 recognising their continued
occupation. For the purpose of exercising right as
against the petitioners to evict them from the land
in question, it has to be decided as to whether the
‘Grama Natham’ land actually vests either with
the Government or the Town Panchayat. As
regards the classification of the land as ‘Grama
Natham’, it is not the communal property in the
sense in which thrashing floor or burning
grounds or other property is communal viz., the
property reserved for the use of the community.
The ‘Grama Natham’ land, 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 the said practice was referred to by
the learned Judge Wadsworth, J. In Chinnathambi
Goundan vs. Venkatasubramania Ayyar, 1936
(49) L.W. 326 as early as on 6.12.1938. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
learned Judge while dealing with the vacant
house sites, had taken note of the recognised
practice of the then Madras Presidency, excluding
the areas with a special revenue law such as
Malabar, the control of unoccupied village site
vests in the proprietor whoever he may be. A
further reference is also made therein to the effect
that in Zamindari areas, that control is exercised
by Zamindar and in a shrotriem village not
falling under the Estates Land Act, the village site
vests in the shrotriemdar. 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. The above view was approved
subsequently in the decision rendered in Palani
Ammal vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar [1949 (1) MLJ
290].
9. A perusal of a combined reading of
Section 3(b) and Section 18 of Madras Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
Act viz., Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and Section 2
of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905
discloses that the title to a house site in a Grama
Natham is protected from transfer to Government.
10. We draw inference for the above view
from the decision rendered by this Court
in S.Rangaraja Iyengar vs. Achi Kannu Ammal,
1959 (2) MLJ 513 : 1959 (72) L.W. 767. A similar
view is expressed by the Apex Court in its
decision rendered
in C.V.Subbaya vs. P.Anjayya, AIR 1972 SC 1421,
while referring to Section 3(b) of the Madras Act
XXVI of 1948, it is held therein that the communal
lands, porambokes, other ryotwari lands, waste
lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries,
rivers and streams tanks and irrigation
works etc., vest with the Government other than
the land classified as ‘Grama Natham’. This
Court in its decision rendered
in N.S.Kuppuswamy Odayar vs. Narthangudi
Panchayat, 1971 MLJ Reports 190 has held that
the classification of ‘Natham Poramboke’ and the
description of ‘Poramboke’ in the settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
register will not, by itself, establish title of the
Government to the land in question.
11. Similarly, this Court in Thillaivanam,
A.K. and another vs. District Collector, Chengai
Anna District and 3 Others, 1998 (3) L.W. 603
and in Krishnamurthy Gounder vs. Government
of Tamil Nadu, 2002 (3) CTC 221 held that the
house sites classified as ‘Grama Natham’ cannot
be construed as vesting with the Government.
12. Further, ‘Grama Natham’ is defined in
the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which
the house of village may be built”. Similarly,
Natham land is described in Tamil lexicon
published under the authority of University of
Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion
of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by
the non-Brahmins; or land reserved as house
sites; etc.
13. 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 Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
and their ancestors 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
adjudications as laid down by the Apex Court in
number of decisions.”
11. In the case of R.Munisamy vs. The District Collector [2007
Writ LR 804], wherein in paragraph-6, this Court observed as under:-
“6. As far as the contention based on the
counter affidavit now filed by the 4th respondent
is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the 4th respondent has
no say as regards the classification or
reclassification of 'Grama Natham'. If at all any
one has got any right in that area, it can only be
expected from respondents 1 to 3, namely the
revenue authorities. The revenue authorities
have in fact chosen not to challenge the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
order of the learned Single Judge and have not
come forward with any counter affidavit in these
writ petitions. Therefore, there is no question of
any stand by any one to state that the earlier
classification of the land in question as 'Grama
Natham' has been reclassified as 'Arasu
Poramboke'. Moreover, since the counter affidavit
of the 4th respondent merely states that the land
in question was subsequently classified as 'Arasu
Poramboke', without reference to any proceedings
and the said stand of the 4th respondent not
having been supported by any of the respondents
1 to 3, it will be wholly unsafe to take a different
view than what has already been held by this
Court in the earlier writ petition which was
confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal
No.9/2007. Above all, when it is the settled legal
position by numerous decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which were also applied and
followed by this Court in the earlier Division
Bench Judgment reported in 2004(3) CTC 270 to
the effect that the Government has no right to
interfere with 'Grama Natham', it will have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
held that such a lack of authority for the
Government will also encompass even any
attempt to make reclassification of a 'Grama
Natham'. Therefore, there is no question of any
reclassification being made even at the instance
of the Government. In such circumstances, the
said submission cannot also be considered for
taking a different view in these writ petitions.”
12. In the case of K.Ilangovan vs. The District Collector and
Others [2014 (1) LW 430], wherein in paragraphs 7 to 10, this Court
observed as under:-
“7. The petitioner and his brothers are in
possession and enjoyment of 1.38 acres of land at
Survey No. 1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in
Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty,
Udumalpet Taluk, which is claimed to be “grama
natham”. Such claim of the petitioner over the
classification of the land in dispute is not denied
or disputed by the respondents and on the other
hand, their counter affidavit also admits that the
land in dispute is a natham poramboke land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
Their only contention in the counter affidavit is
that such land is meant for houseless poor and
agricultural labourers for constructing houses
which has been illegally encroached upon by the
petitioner and his brothers. Once it is admitted
that it is a grama natham or natham poramboke,
whether the respondents have got any right to
proceed against the petitioner in respect of such
lands, is a question that came up for
consideration before this court as early as in the
year 1959 wherein this Court in a decision
reported in (1959) 72 L.W. 769 : 1959 (2) MLJR
513, S. Rengaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal,
has held that ‘the title to a house site in grama
natham is protected from transfer to the
Government by operation of Madras Act 3 of
1905’. Subsequently in another decision reported
in 1998 (3) L.W 603, A.K. Thillaivanam v. The
District Collector, Chengai Anna District, a
learned single Judge of this Court has observed
at paragraph No. 19 as follows:
“19…The Village Natham is a land
which never vested with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
respondents and they have no right to
it. Admittedly, when the land has been
classified as village Natham, it is
obvious that no portion of the land
vests with the respondents. The
admitted classification is village
Natham and merely because the
petitioners have converted the same
into agricultural lands, no right could
accrue to the respondents even after
conversion.”
The learned Single Judge has elaborately
discussed the status of the land and the right of
the Government and thereafter, came to the
conclusion that the village natham land never
vest with the Government.”
8. In another decision of the Division
Bench of this Court reported in 2004-3-L.W. 278
: 2004 (3) CTC 270, The Executive Officer,
Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V. Swaminathan,
such view of the learned Single Judge was once
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
“11. Similarly, this Court
in Thillaivanam, A.K. v. District
Collector, Chengai Anna District, 1998
(3) L.W. 603 and in Krishnamurthy
Gounder v. Government of Tamil
Nadu, 2002 (3) CTC 221 held that the
house sites classified as ‘Grama
Natham’ cannot be construed as
vesting with the Government.
12. Further ‘Grama Natham’ is
defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground
set apart on which the house of village
may be built”. Similarly, Natham land
is described in Tamil lexicon published
under the authority of University of
Madras to the effect that it is a
residential portion of a village; or
portion of a village inhabited by the
non-Brahmins; or land reserved as
house sites; etc.
13. In the light of the above and in
view of the fact that the admitted
classification of the land being a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
‘Grama Natham’, it is obvious that the
land was never vested with the
Government or the Town Panchayat.
Inasmuch as the petitioners and their
ancestors 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
adjudications as laid down by the Apex
Court in number of decisions.”
9. In a recent decision of a learned single
Judge of this Court reported in 2012 (2) CTC
315, State of Tamilnadu, rep. By the Collector,
Virudhunagar v. Madasami, the nomenclature of
the land was considered and found at paragraph
No. 14 as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
“14. The factual aspects discussed
and found by both the Courts below in
respect of the nature of the property
viz., Gramanatham is not denied by the
Appellant. Supporting the same, the
learned Government Pleader (CS)
would submit in his argument that the
property was classified as
Gramanatham in the settlement
register of the year 1923 and the
property being a Gramanatham, the
Government alone be the owner of the
property. If, the argument of the
learned Additional Government
Pleader (CS) is accepted, the Suit filed
by the plaintiffs would have no legs to
stand and the Appeal should have been
consequently allowed. For deciding
such crux, we must firstly consider the
character and qualities of a land
classified under ‘Gramanatham’.
There is no dispute that wherever the
lands classified as Natham or Natham
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
Poramboke or Gramanatham are only
meant a Gramanatham. The
Gramanatham lands were classified
and allotted for village people to use
them as house sites or for any other
purposes for storing his hay and
manure or as a smithy or as a brick-
klin or as a place for weaving, etc.”
Thus, from the above decision, it could be seen
that the lands whether are classified as natham
poramboke or grama natham, they are only
meant to be classified as grama natham alone.
10. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
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. No costs. The connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.”
13. In the case of N.G.Govindan vs. The State Represented by
The Secretary, PWD [pronounced on 26.11.2018 in WA(MD) No.320 of
2015], wherein the Madurai Bench of this Court, in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
observed as under:-
“8. The learned Counsel for the appellant
relied upon yet another judgment of this Court in
the case of K.Ilangovan vs The District Collector,
Coimbatore and others, reported in 2014-1- LW-
430. This Court after referring to several
precedents, has held that the land which is
classified as gramanatham is essentially a
residential portion of a village and that a person,
who is in occupation of the lands is considered to
be owner of such piece of land. It has been held by
this Court in several cases that the Government
cannot claim right over the lands, which were
classified as gramanatham as the said land does
not vest with the Government under any of the
enactments.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant
further relied upon a judgment of this Court in the
case of Muthammal (Died) and others vs State of
Tamilnadu and another, reported in (2006) 3 MLJ
216, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
"8. Learned Senior Counsel also
clarified that in Natham, first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
occupier will be treated as the owner
and no patta will be given to them.
Patta is issued only for assessed
lands and it is the settled law. That is
why, Natham is called as Poramboke
i.e., "natham poramboke" which
means "poram" is outside; "poke" is
revenue record. Thus the word
"poramboke lands" means the lands
which is not assessed to revenue
records and it is outside the revenue
accounts. Likewise, "gramanatham" is
defined in the Law Lexicon as
"ground set apart on which the house
of village may be built". Similarly,
Natham land is described in Tamil
lexicon published under the authority
of University of Madras to the effect
that it is a residential portion of a
village; or portion of a village
inhabited by the non brahmins; or
land reserved as house sites; etc.,
Learned senior counsel also relied on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
very many decisions of this High
Court as well as the Apex Court to the
effect that Poramboke does not
include natham and grama natham
never vest with the Government,
which will be referred to in the latter
part of this judgment."
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant
further relied upon yet another judgment of this
Court in the case of K.Subban Pagadai vs
S.Subban Pagadai and another, reported in (2002)
2 MLJ 636, wherein, it has been held that the land
classified as gramanatham does not vest with the
Government and the title of the same is not
transferred to the Government. In the said
judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court
has followed the earlier judgment of this Court in
the case of S.Rengaraja Iyengar vs Achikannu
Ammal, reported in (1959) 2 MLJ 513, wherein
also, it has been held that the land which was
classified as gramanatham does not vest with the
Government and the title of the same is not
transferred to the Government.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners is of an opinion that
the subject property is also classified as 'Grama Natham' and therefore, the
issuance of notice under the Act is unsustainable.
15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third
respondent-SIDCO/SIPCOT, objected the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners, by stating that entry in the 'A' Register maintained by the
Revenue Department, the subject land was classified as 'Village Site' and the
names of the petitioners are not found in the said 'A' Register. Thus, the
petitioners cannot claim any right even in respect of the land, which is
classified as 'Grama Natham'.
16. In the present cases, no doubt, even 'Grama Natham Lands'
in villages belong to the Government and the said lands are not assigned in
favour of any third person and it is assigned for the first time in favour of the
SIDCO/SIPCOT and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right over
the property, as their names are not found in the 'A' Register maintained by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
the Revenue Department.
17. The learned counsel for the third respondent further
contended that the subject land was assigned in favour of SIDCO/SIPCOT in
G.O.Ms.No.10, Revenue Department, dated 03.01.2002 and in view of the
pendency of these writ petitions for more than 13 years, the SIDCO/
SIPCOT is unable to develop the property for the purpose of industrial
developments.
18. The petitioners have not established their right in respect of
any assignments made in their favour and the Settlement Deed cannot be
relied upon, as it is created between the parties. In the absence of
establishing any right with reference to the revenue records and or
assignment order by the Government or otherwise, the petitioners are to be
treated as encroachers and therefore, notice issued to provide an opportunity
to the petitioners is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and no
infirmity as such. Thus, the writ petitions are to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
19. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on
behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4 reiterated by stating that the notice was
issued pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.14269 of 2008,
wherein a complaint was made by the petitioners that the due process of law
was not followed. Thus, in compliance of the principles of natural justice
and by following the procedures contemplated under the Act, the notice
under Section 7 of the Act, was issued enabling the petitioners to avail the
opportunity and to defend their case. Though the petitioners have filed their
explanations, they have not waited for the decision to be taken by the
Competent Authorities and filed these writ petitions and got the order of
interim injunction and therefore, all further actions are stalled.
20. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that
the unauthorised occupation of 'Grama Nathams' will be treated as
encroachments. The impugned notice was issued in accordance with law.
The land referred to be 'Poramboke Land' belongs to the Government. Thus,
the provisions of the Act will be applicable for the purpose of evicting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
encroachers of 'Government Lands'. In these cases, no assignment or patta
was granted in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, they cannot be construed
as persons, who all are in legal possession of the subject property and
therefore, they are encroachers and liable to be evicted under the provisions
of the Act.
21. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioners claim rights as they are in
possession. It is contended that their predecessors were in possession for
long years and the said subject property is classified as 'Grama Natham'.
22. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners to establish that 'Grama Natham Lands' do not belong to
Government and it vests with the persons, who all are in possession and thus
the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, is to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
23. Per contra, the respondents raised an objection by stating
that the petitioners are not authorised persons to continue their possession of
the subject property as there is no assignment or patta granted in their
favour and thus the petitioners are to be construed as encroachers for all
purposes and therefore, the initiation of action for eviction is in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and there is no infirmity as such.
24. This Court is of the considered opinion that even in case of
lands, which all are classified as 'Grama Nathams', the right of property
cannot be assumed or transferred automatically and more specifically, in the
absence of assignment or pattta, which is to be granted in accordance with
law. It is not as if the persons, who all are squatting the 'Grama Natham
Land' is allowed to claim right or title over such property.
25. In Common Parlance, the lands classified as 'Grama
Nathams' belongs to the Government. It is not as if such 'Grama Natham
Lands' can be squatted by any citizen and claim right over such property. If
such practices are allowed, then it will create a wrong mindset amongst the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
people for committing an illegal act of encroachments or taking possession
of such 'Grama Natham Lands'. Thus, every property right is to be
established by way of documents or evidences.
26. Admittedly, the subject land was assigned in favour of
SIPCOT. However, the petitioner claims right only based on the possession
for longer period. But, no assignment or patta was issued in favour of the
petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have no right to claim ownership in respect
of the land belongs to the Government. The State Government is formulating
schemes for the purpose of allotment of 'Government Poramboke Lands',
'Grama Natham Lands' etc., in favour of landless poor people. No doubt,
such schemes are to be implemented in favour of the landless poor and down
trodden people through Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department or
Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board and the assignment or patta
is to be granted only to the eligible persons in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the welfare schemes.
27. We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to
secure to all its citizens: justice, social, economic and political; liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of
opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity
of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.
28. As resolved by We, the people of India, it is our duty to
thrive hard to minimize the economic indifferences between the citizens and
such economic upliftments are enumerated under the Directive principles
also. Therefore, the economic status of a person and other criterias to be
fixed by the Government must be scrupulously followed, while assigning the
Government lands in favour of individuals. Thus, persons, who are in
possession, cannot claim right of title or ownership in the absence of valid
documents.
29. 'Grama Natham Lands' are assigned by the Government in
favour of eligible poor persons in order to achieve the constitutional goals of
social justice. Such Government lands are assigned to poor and down
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
trodden people. However, citizen having sufficient means or possessing
properties, can never be assigned with such Government lands or 'Grama
Natham Lands' for their unjust gains, which is in violation of the
Constitutional principles of equality and social justice. Thus, assignments or
grant of patta in respect of 'Grama Natham Lands', 'Government Poramboke
Lands' etc., must be granted by the Government of the day in a judicious
manner to uphold the constitutional principles and not otherwise.
30. In the present cases, the petitioners claim that the subject
property of the land is classified as 'Grama Natham'. The Report submitted
by the Tahsildar to the District Collector is relied upon to establish that these
lands are 'Grama Natham Lands' and the respondents say that it is classified
as ' Village Site' and the names of the petitioners are not found in the 'A'
Register maintained by the Revenue Department. Further, the lands were
assigned in favour of SIDCO/SIPCOT as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Revenue
Department, dated 03.01.2002. The respondents have further referred
paragraph-7 of Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 21(ii) wherein it is stated
that an order by the Tahsildar himself is Appendix XIX or XX, as the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
may be, issued for all sites assigned under this Section. In the instant cases,
the petitioners have not received the order from the Tahsildar in Appendix
XI or XX, as the case may be, treated as 'Grama Natham Poramboke' until
they get the order under this Section. The petitioners are not possessing any
documents in respect of the subject land properties in Survey No.40/1,
though they are in possession of the land, the Settlement Deed created in the
year 2001, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conferring any right as it
was between the Private Parties.
31. Mere electricity supply connection or bill, would not confer
any right of property. Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess a valid
document to establish their title or ownership. Thus, unauthorised
occupation or possession of 'Grama Natham Lands' are also to be construed
as encroachment. Therefore, all such encroachments are to be removed by
following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
32. With reference to the judgments relied upon by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
counsel for the petitioners, no doubt, 'Grama Natham Lands' are assigned to
the people, who all are in possession for long years, considering various
factors. However, such assignments must be made considering the eligibility
to get Government lands at free of cost. Under these circumstances, each
case is to be considered based on its own facts and circumstances. It is not
as if the Courts have upheld the assignment of 'Grama Natham Lands' and
therefore, all such persons, who all are in possession of 'Grama Natham
Lands' must be conferred with the property right. Such a proposition is not
contemplated by the Courts. In the event of considering the claim of the
persons merely on the ground of possession, then the same will result in
disastrous consequences as greedy men and many other people will enter
into possession of such Government lands and 'Grama Natham Lands' and
claim property right. It will create lawlessness in dealing with the
Government Poramboke properties and 'Grama Natham Lands'. Thus, every
Government land or 'Grama Natham Land' belongs to the Government must
be dealt with in accordance with law and therefore, merely based on the
possession, no one can claim title or ownership in respect of Government
lands including 'Grama Natham Lands'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
33. In a growing population in our Great Nation, the property
values are exorbitantly increased and still going upwards. Greedy men and
anti-social elements are going on committing property related crimes by
manipulating the documents in a fraudulent way for unjust gains. When
such property related offences are increasing day-by-day, the Government
are expected to be vigilant and protect the Government properties for the
benefit of the public at large. All such public properties are to be utilized for
implementation of developmental schemes for the benefit of the people.
34. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioners could
not able to establish their right in respect of the Government lands, which is
classified as “Grama Natham”. Per contra, the respondents 1 and 2 have
established that the land classified as “Village Site” and the names of the
petitioners are not found in the 'A' Register maintained by the Revenue
Department. This apart, the said land was already assigned in favour of the
SIPCOT for development of Industrial area in G.O.Ms.No.10, Revenue
Department, dated 03.01.2002. Thus, persons, who are in possession and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
not conferred with any right by the Government by way of an assignment or
otherwise cannot claim right over the 'Grama Natham Lands' and all those
persons are to be treated as encroachers and consequently, they are liable to
be evicted by following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions
of the Land Encroachment Act.
35. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10, Revenue
Department, dated 03.01.2002, assigning the lands to the SIPCOT. The
petitioners filed the present writ petition in the year 2008. Pursuant to the
interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners are in continuous
possession for more than 11 years. The petitioners have enough enjoyed the
subject property with the benefit of the interim order granted by this Court.
The impugned eviction notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued in the
year 2008 itself.
36. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to continue in the Government
property as they are encroachers. Accordingly, the respondents are directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
to complete the eviction proceedings and take over the possession of the
property and handover the same to the SIPCOT for development of
Industrial area for the benefit of the people at large and for the development
of our great Nation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
01-12-2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
Svn/kak
To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Thasildar,
Chengalpattu Taluk.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
3.The Project Officer,
SIPCOT, Siruseri,
Chingleput Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Project Officer,
Small Industries Corporation (SIDCO),
Siruseri, Chingleput Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
5.The Revenue Inspector,
Kelambakkam,
Chingleput Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn/kak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.29089 and 30788 of 2008
WPs 29089 and
30788 of
01-12-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
