Madras High Court

C.Lakshmanan vs The District Collector on 1 February, 2022

                                                                                    W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED :    01.02.2022

                                                            CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                                AND
                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                W.P.(MD)No.22809 of 2021
                                               and W.M.P.No.......... of 2021

                     C.Lakshmanan                                         .. Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                     1. The District Collector,
                        Collectorate Office,
                        Sivagangai.

                     2. The District Revenue Officer,
                        Sivagangai.

                     3. The Tashildar,
                        Karaikudi Taluk,
                        Sivagangai District.                              .. Respondents
                                                               ***
                     Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
                     pertaining to the impugned order No.Na.Ka.E4/23480/2021, dated
                     11.12.2021 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and
                     direct the first respondent to issue patta to the oorkavalan maydai
                     temple belonging to Vadakudi nattar situated in Survey No.256/7 of
                     Pallanthur Village on the basis of Settlement Land Record (SLR).
                                                               ***
                                    For Petitioner      :      Mr.P.Karthick

                                    For Respondents :          Mr.P.Subburaj,
                                                               Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Page 1/9
                                                                                    W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021




                                                      JUDGEMENT

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

Questioning the correctness of the order passed by the first

respondent and also seeking a direction to issue patta, the petitioner

instituted this writ petition.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the first respondent, while

dismissing the appeal of the writ petitioner, directed them to demolish

the wall that was constructed in Natham land in Survey No.256/7 of

Pallanthur Village, Karaikudi taluk, without obtaining any approval.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Oorkavalan Maydai Kovil

is located in Survey No.256/7, Pallanthur Group Village, Karaikudi Taluk

and the people of the village and other people from different parts of the

State have been worshiping the temple for centuries. According to him,

the temple is located in the land, which was classified as "Gramma

Natham" and even in the Settlement Land Record (SLR), it was stated as

Oorkavalan Maydai.

3.1. While so, the Karaikudi Tahsildar sent an eviction notice on

23.12.2020 for the removal of encroachment in the said survey number

under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encorachment Act, 1905 (in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021

short, "the Act"). The petitioner and other devotees submitted their

objection letter on 19.01.2021. Thereafter, there was no response from

the authorities, which necessitated the petitioner to file WP(MD)No.14164

of 2021 before this Court seeking to quash the notice.

3.2. Since it was represented that an appeal dated 19.01.2021

was filed with the first respondent, this Court vide order dated

12.08.2021 directed the said authority to dispose of the appeal on merits

and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, while directing

the parties to maintain status quo.

3.3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the

first respondent on 23.11.2021 and produced the records. But without

considering the same, the order dated 11.12.2021, which was served on

18.12.2021, came to be passed. Thus, the petitioner is before this

Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Government has no authority to remove encorachment on Grama Nathan

land, as the same is a village land utilized for domicile purpose and it

never vests with the Government and thus, the subject Act has no

application and even assuming, it applies, before issuing the notice under

6, notice under Section 7 ought to have been issued, which violation

vitiates the entire process, so also the impugned order. It is also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021

contended that the prayer of the petitioner to grant patta was also not

considered by the first respondent in right perspective. To buttress his

submissions, learned counsel relied upon the order dated 11.10.2018

passed by a Division Bench of this Court in T.S.Ravi and another V.

The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur (W.P. Nos.

26234 and 26237 of 2018).

5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader on the above

submissions and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. The first respondent in the impugned order itself admitted

that the subject land is a Grama Natham land. This Court in a catena of

decisions approved the position that the Grama Natham land is a dwelling

place meant for villagers and it does not vest in the Government. The

Division Bench in T.S.Ravi's case (referred supra) held as follows :

"30. 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. It is always open to the Government to acquire the lands by paying compensation, if they are needed for any public purpose.

31. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the notices issued under Section 7 and the orders passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act, III of 1905 are quashed, leaving it open to the Government to acquire the lands in question, if the Government

requires it for any public purpose. No costs."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021

7. In the said order, the Division Bench also referred extensively

the earlier judgments. In paragraphs 25 and 26, the applicability of the

Act was discussed in the following manner :

"25. In A.K. Thillaivanam and another v. The District Collect, Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, reported in 1998 (3) LW 603, a learned Single Judge of this Court had concluded that the land that is classified as Grama Natham, does not vest in the Government and the Government has no right to take action under the Land Encroachment Act or any other enactment to dispossess the occupants of these lands. After referring to the earlier decisions, the learned Judge observed as follows:

“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.”

26. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt V. Raghavan and another, reported in 2012 (1) CTC 280, another Division Bench of this Court had considered the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to the lands classified as Grama Natham. After revisiting the Law, the Division Bench had taken note of the fact that the Government had introduced a scheme called Natham Nilavari Thittam and issued pattas to the occupants of Grama Natham lands, while doing so the Division Bench had observed as follows:

“32. Therefore, Gramanatham is not vested with the Government. Under UDR Scheme (Up Dating Revenue Record https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021

scheme) the gramanatham lands were surveyed and survey numbers have been assigned. There was an attempt by the Government to levy tax (Natham Nilavari Thittam). Therefore, under that scheme, the Natham lands were surveyed and resurvey numbers were assigned and pattas were issued. Since gramanatham is the habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside they were known as house sites. They were classified as Gramanatham to differentiate the land from Inam lands Ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands. While the lands under the other classifications vested with the Government, the gramanatham never vested with the State. However, under the UDR scheme, to enforce a tax on the Natham lands, a Thoraya Patta, for tax purporse was issued to those persons who claimed to be the land holders. The land holding is based on the title through the predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the patta issued under UDR scheme is not the patta under the Land Encroachment Act and there is no bar of the jurisdicition of the civil court under Sec.14 of the Land Encroachment Act.”

27. In view of the above decisions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the clear legal position that emerges is as under:

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. As already adverted to the Government had issued pattas to the petitioners and has also recognised the title of the petitioners by acquiring a portion of these lands by paying compensation in the year 2011. The fact that the pattas have been granted to the petitioners as well as the fact that a portion of these lands were acquired from the petitioners by paying compensation in the year 2011 is not disputed by the Government. While so, we are at a loss to understand as to how, the Government can now claim that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021

the petitioners are encroachers. The one and the only reason that is projected is that the petitioners have put these lands to commercial use. From the facts, it is seen that the petitioners have put up shops in the front portion and residential accommodation in the rear portion. This by itself would not mean that the lands have lost their character as Grama Natham lands."

8. Keeping the above legal position in mind, we are of the view

that the order passed by the first respondent, which is a cryptic order

bereft of any discussion delving into the claim made by the petitioner,

cannot sustain in the eye of law. The claim of the writ petitioner and

other devotees seeking patta was not considered in the proper

perspective. Further, the violation of the provisions of the Act and the

non-applicability of the Act was not discussed by the first respondent.

Since the subject land is used for religious purpose and not dwelling

purpose, it is incumbent on the first respondent to pass a reasoned order

qua the relief sought for by the writ petitioner.

9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order, dated

11.12.2021 made in No.Na.Ka.E4/23480/2021, by the first respondent,