Madras High Court
R.A.V.Kovil Annayya Charities vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.25608 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on : 06.11.2023
Orders pronounced on : 22.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.25608 of 2023
R.A.V.Kovil Annayya Charities,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
C.Narasimha Swamy .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Tiruvallur - 602 001.
2. The Revenue Inspector,
Taluk Office, Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur - 600 056.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur - 600 056.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/41
W.P.No.25608 of 2023
4. M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Rep. by the Chief General Manager (Legal),
At Metros, No.327, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035. .. Respondents
(R4 impleaded vide order, dated 07.09.2023 made
in W.M.P.No.25975 of 2023 in W.P.No.25608 of 2023)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file
of the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.1673/2023/B1, dated 24.08.2023 and
Na.Ka.1673/2023/AA1, dated 25.08.2023 and quash the same as illegal,
incompetent and without jurisdiction and further forbearing the respondents
from interfering with the possession of the petitioners with respect the
property in S.No.1382/2, Pasali 1432, Poonamallee village, Tiruvallur
district.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram,
Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath,
Government Advocate,
and Mrs.A.G.Shakeenaa, for RR-1 to 3
: Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Assisted by Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, for R4
2/41
W.P.No.25608 of 2023
ORDER
(Order made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Tahsildar, Poonamallee, dated 24.08.2023 in R.C.No.1673/2023/B1, thereby,
rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and holding that the
petitioner is an encroacher liable to be evicted from the subject premises as
per Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') and the consequential notice issued as per Section 6
of the Act, dated 25.08.2023, bearing R.C.No.1673/2023/B1.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property comprised in
S.No.1382/2 ad-measuring to an extent of 3310 Sq.mts in Poonamallee
Village and Taluk, Tiruvallur District was originally the absolute property of
the forefathers of one C.Narasimha Swamy, the Managing Trustee of the
petitioner trust, namely, R.A.V.Kovil Annayya Charities. It is their absolute
‘Gramanatham’ property. They created a trust and dedicated the income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the trust property to be used for the expenses of ‘Arulmigu Thirukachi
Nambi Thiru Avatar Dhivya Mahotsava’. There are superstructures in the
property in the nature of commercial shops which is rented out and the
income is defrayed for the said purposes of the trust.
3. While so, now the new Chennai Metro Rail project line is planned
in the said area. In view of the CMRL line, the road has to be
realigned/extended. For the said purpose, the above property is now
required for the respondents. However, without issuing any notice for
acquisition of the above property belonging to the petitioner, the respondent
simply issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner approached
this Court against the said action and by order dated 14.03.2023 in
W.P.No.31688 of 2022, this Court directed that the petitioner’s objections
shall be duly considered by the respondents. The respondents rejected the
contention holding that the land is classified as ‘Sarkar Poramboke’ land and
that ‘Gramanatham’ land can be occupied only by poor for the residential
purposes only. Once the property is used for commercial purposes, no right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
can be claimed that the property is Gramanatham. Even the poor people are
entitled to only 3 cents of land as grant from the Government and nothing
beyond that. The respondents are attempting to immediately evict the
petitioner and hence the petitioner is before this court.
4. Though normally an appeal would lie before the District Collector
under Section 10 of the Act, in the instant case, in respect of the same CMRL
line in the very same Poonamallee Village in respect of an identical claim of
title on the basis of Gramanatham land, this Court recently had decided the
issue in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in WP
No.31688 of 2022 in A.Sacractice and Ors. Vs. The District Collector and
Ors.1. The respondents still felt that the matter needs consideration and
considering the urgency involved in the issue, both sides argued the matter
on merits and accordingly, we had entertained and heard the Writ Petition on
merits without relegating the parties to the alternative remedy available
under the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2023:MHC:1047
5. With respect to the emergent need of the land for CMRL purpose,
we had observed that the petitioner can part with the possession subject to its
right to claim compensation in respect of the land, as the respondents are
ready to pay compensation presently for the superstructure.
Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, in response submits that the petitioner will not resist the taking
over of possession once notice is issued for acquisition of land in accordance
with law and not in the proceedings under the Act.
6. We heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel and
thereafter Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, the learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Wilson, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
submitted that Gramanatham lands are not Government interest lands. They
are the private and absolute property of the individuals and the petitioner has
all the right, title and interest over the said lands. Merely because the land is
also mentioned as ‘Poramboke’ in the Natham Land Settlement Register, it
will not in any manner confer title in the State. He would submit that in any
event, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked once the property is a
Gramanatham land. The learned Senior Counsel would primarily rely upon
the judgment of this Court in A.R.Meenakshi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
Ors.2.
8. Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned Counsel, continuing the arguments,
also submitted the following judgments on behalf of the petitioner :-
S.No. Name of the Parties Citation
1. S.Rengaraja Iyengar and Ors. Vs. Achikannu 1959-72-LE767
Ammal and Ors.
2. L.V.Veeri Chettiar and Ors. Vs. Sales Tax AIR 1971 Mad 155
Officer, Bombay
3. Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya and Ors. Vs. AIR 1972 SC 1421
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2013-4-LW76 (Mad)
Paladuga Anjayya and Ors.
4. The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town (2004) 2 MLJ 708
Panchayat Vs. V.Swaminathan and Ors.
5. Muthammal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and (2006) 3 MLJ 216
Ors.
6. A.Srinivasan and Ors. Vs. The Tahsildar 2010-1-LW123
Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk
7. Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt Vs. Raghavan and 2012 (1) CTC 280
Ors.
8. A.R.Meenakshi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 2013-4-LW76
Ors.
9. Nalliaya Gounder Vs. The State of Tamil 2013-4-LW85
Nadu, The Revenue Divisional Officer and
Ors.
10. K.Ilangovan Vs. The District Collector, 2014-1-LW430
Coimbatore and Ors.
11. D.Shankar and Ors. Vs. Special Commissioner (2014) 1 MLJ 818
and Commissioner for Land Administration
and Ors.
12. C.Lakshmanan Vs. The District Collector, MANU/TN/0615/2022
Sivagangai and Ors.
13. T.S.Ravi and Anr. Vs. The District Collector, W.P.Nos.26234 & 26237 of
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur and Ors. 2018, dated 11.10.2018
14. A.Sacractice and Ors. Vs. The District 2023:MHC:1047
Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur and
Ors.
9. Per contra, Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the land in
question is needed on an emergent basis for the CMRL project. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner has not produced any document of title in his favour. When the
land in question is claimed to be a Gramanatham land, the same would, at
best, confer title if only it is used and occupied for residential purpose and
not otherwise. The land is classified as Poramboke land and insofar as
improvements made by way of superstructure are concerned, already
compensation is agreed to be paid to the petitioner. He would further rely
upon the judgment of this Court in Zonal Officer - V, Corporation of
Chennai, Chennai - 600 010 and Anr. Vs. K.Narasa Reddy, Kances
Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai - 17 and Ors.3, whereunder, the need to
curtail rampant misuse of Gramanatham lands has been declined and it has
been categorically held that Gramanatham is a common village land and
greedy persons cannot indulge in purely commercial activity in the sand land
and the Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to strictly protect the
Gramanatham lands being misused for commercial purposes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2012) 4 MLJ 646
10. Thereafter, by way of further hearing, we directed the learned
Government Pleader to produce the proof that the land is Government
interest land. The translated copy of the A-Register of No.40, Poonamallee
Village which is an updated register as per G.O.Ms.No.869, Commercial
Taxes and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 30.09.1985 was
produced before us. In the said register, the corresponding old S.No.115/74
is mentioned in Column No.3 (Ryotwari (R) or Government (G)) as
Government and mentioned as Poramboke in Column No.4 (Nanjai (N),
Punjai (P), Manavari (M), Unassessed Waste (UAW), Puramboke (P)). The
Column No.11, relating to patta number and name of the registered holder
remains blank. In the remarks column i.e., in Column No.12, it is mentioned
as Gramanatham.
11. Another record, being the true extract of the Natham Settlement
Scheme Fair Adangal Register, was also produced which again contains the
same entries as mentioned above and the S.No.115/74 is divided into three
parts as 1382/1, 1382/2 and 1382/3. The S.Nos.1381/1 and 1381/3 stand in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the name of private individuals namely, K.Gnanambal and N.Mookanadar,
while the name of the petitioner trust is not entered to as the holder of the
land. The land is described as Gramanatham.
12. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
fourth respondent, would submit that once the revenue records mention the
land as Government Poramboke land, then the same is a Government
interest land and the Government has every right to invoke the provisions of
the Act. He would submit that even in the earlier Division Bench judgments
of T.S.Ravi and Anr. Vs. The District Collector, Thriuvallur District and
Ors. in W.P.Nos.26234 and 26237 of 2018 and A.Sacractice's case (cited
supra), the land was mainly used for residential purpose and only part was
commercial. But this case stands on a different footing. He would rely upon
the judgment of this Court in M.Sekar Vs. The District Collector,
Namakkal and Ors.4. In the said judgment this Court held that
Gramanatham lands cannot be utilised for commercial purposes and in such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2016 SCC OnLine Mad 27115
cases, even the patta granted is liable to be cancelled. He would therefore
pray that the Writ Petition be dismissed. He would also submit that already,
a Special Leave Petition is also filed and pending against the earlier
judgment in A.Sacractice's case (cited supra).
13. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case. The question that arises for
consideration in the instant case is whether or not the land in question can be
deemed to be Government interest land so as to invoke the provisions of the
Act ?
14. The fact that, the Gramanatham lands are private interest lands
and do not vest with the Government, has been held consistently by this
Court and the earliest of the judgments is Palani Ammal Vs. L.Sethurama
Aiyangar5. As a matter of fact, this Court in A.R.Meenakshi cited supra the
learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian as His
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AIR 1949 Mad 814
Lordship then was) has clearly encapsulated the legal position in detail and it
is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 to 22 which read as hereunder :-
" 10. In N.S. Kuppuswamy Odayar Vs.
Narthangudi Panchayat
[MANU/TN/0303/1970MANU/TN/0303/1970 :
1971 (1) MLJ 190], it was held by M.M. Ismail, J
that 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.
11. In Rengaraja Iyengar Vs. Achikannu
Ammal
[MANU/TN/0492/1959MANU/TN/0492/1959 :
1959 (2) MLJ 513], this Court pointed out that a
house site owned by a person in what is generally
known as gramanatham is not the property of the
Government under Tamilnadu Act III of 1905. The
Court also went on to point out that in order that
a land may properly be described as house site,
within the meaning of that expression in Section 2
of the Act, it is not necessary that there should be
a residential building. A person may, in a village
habitation, own a house in a street and a site on
the outskirts of the habitation, but within the
limits of the gramanatham, using it for the
purpose of storing his hay and manure, if he is an
agriculturist, or as a smithy, if he is a smith, or as
a brick-kiln, if he is a brick maker or as a place
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for weaving, if he is a weaver. It was contended in
the said case that by virtue of Section 3(b) of the
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948, house sites should also be
held to be property as to which title gets
transferred to the Government. But, the Court
repelled the contention by pointing out that a
building in a gramanatham is protected from
transfer of title to the Government both under
Section 18(1) of the 1948 Act and also under the
Land Encroachment Act, 1905. In other words,
the title to a house site in a gramanatham is
protected from transfer to Government by the
operation of Tamilnadu Act III of 1905.
12. In Thillaivanam, A.K. and another Vs.
District Collector, Chengai Anna District and
three others
[MANU/TN/1720/1997MANU/TN/1720/1997 :
1998 (3) LW 603], this Court pointed out that
village natham is a land, which never vest with
the Government. Therefore, the Court pointed out
that persons, who are admittedly in exclusive
possession of such property and who were never
assessed to penal charges, or issued with B-
Memos should be taken to have acquired a valid
right to the land.
13. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned
Additional Advocate General raised one
contention, namely that even if the land in
question is a gramanatham, it is a communal
property, which cannot be appropriated by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis individuals. But, the said argument was already
repelled by Satyanarayana Rao, J in Palani
Ammal Vs. L. Sethurama Aiyangar
[MANU/TN/0191/1949MANU/TN/0191/1949 :
1949 (1) MLJ 290], by holding that
gramanatham is not a communal property in the
sense in which thrashing floor or burning
grounds or other property is communal. It is a
land in the occupation of individuals, whose
possession cannot be interfered. The individual in
possession could very well resist ejectment and
even institute a suit for ejectment against a
trespasser.
14. In Krishnamurthy Gounder Vs.
Government of Tamilnadu
[MANU/TN/1054/2002MANU/TN/1054/2002 :
2002 (3) CTC 221], K. Raviraja Pandian, J relied
upon the decisions in Palani Ammal and A.K.
Thillaivanam and held that gramanatham is a
land, which never vested with the Government
and that therefore, the eviction of persons in
occupation of gramanatham land is
impermissible under the Land Encroachment Act,
1905.
15. In The Executive Officer, Kadathur
Town Panchayat Vs. Swaminathan
[MANU/TN/0517/2004MANU/TN/0517/2004 :
2004 (2) MLJ 708], a Division Bench of this
Court referred to the definition of the word
'gramanatham' appearing in Law Lexicon as
'ground set apart on which the house of village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis may be built'. After citing several earlier
decisions including those in Palani Ammal, S.
Rengaraja Iyengar and A.K. Thillaivanam, the
Division Bench came to the conclusion that
natham land does not vest with the Government to
enable them to throw out persons in occupation.
16. A situation identical to the one on hand
arose before a Division Bench of this Court in
The State of Madras vs. Kasturi Ammal
[MANU/TN/0531/1973MANU/TN/0531/1973 :
1974 (87) L.W. 531]. In that case, a land was
taken possession of by a panchayat by offering to
purchase it from the person in possession on the
ground that the land was required for erecting
water works. After taking possession, the
panchayat (which later became a municipality)
and the State Government refused to pay
compensation for the land on the ground that the
land was partly a road poramboke and partly a
natham poramboke according to a survey held in
1919. Therefore, the State and the municipality
contended that the land had already vested with
the Government in terms of Section 2(1) of the
Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 and also
in terms of Tamilnadu Act XXX of 1963. Hence,
the person, claiming to be the owner, filed a suit
for declaration of title and also for compensation.
The suit was decreed on the ground that the State
was estopped from denying the title of the
plaintiff. The appeals filed by the State and the
cross objections filed by the plaintiff for
enhancement of the compensation, came up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before a Division Bench of Ramaprasad Rao and
Natarajan, JJ. After referring to the decision of
Subrahmanyam, J in S. Rengaraja Iyengar, the
Division Bench referred to a few other decisions
in paragraph 14 and elicited the principle of law
in paragraph 15. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the
decision are extracted as follows:
14. We may also usefully refer to
some other decisions which hold that
the statutory machinery provided under
Act XXVI of 1948 or Act XXX of 1963
as the case may be can have
jurisdiction only in respect of those
matters, such as the grant of ryotwari
patta, provided under the Act and that
such machinery, being the creatures of
the statute, cannot deal with a civil
right, the determination of which can be
done only by a civil Court. In State of
Madras Vs. Umayal Achi and Ors.
L.P.A. No. 106 of 1959., it was held that
the civil Court had jurisdiction to
entertain the suit for a mere injunction
restraining the Government from
arbitrarily and oppressively applying
the provisions of the Land
Encroachments Act to persons like the
plaintiff who have been in occupation of
lands in a notified estate even prior to
the date of the notification. In The State
of Madras Vs. Parisutha Nadar
MANU/TN/0504/1960MANU/TN/0504
/1960 : (1961) 2 M.L.J.285., it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis held that it is not open to the
Government in the course of the
proceedings to put forward its own title
to the property sought to be acquired so
as to defeat the rights of the persons
entitled to the compensation. In State of
Madras Vs. Ramalingasami Madani, a
Bench of this Court held as follows: "It
is clear from the provisions of the Act
(XXVI of 1948) that what really vests in
the Government in respect of a ryoti or
private land is merely title and there is
no vesting of possession, which is
protected under the proviso to Section
3(d) of the Act. So long as the
possession of the land continues to vest
in the ryot, he would be entitled to
protect his rights in respect of the same
by resorting to civil Courts." Though
there is a long catena of decisions in
this behalf, we have adverted to a few
only as it is unnecessary to make
reference to all of them in view of the
fact that the law is now well settled that
the statutory machinery created by
either Act XXVI of 1948 or Act XXX of
1963 can exercise jurisdiction only in
respect of those matters which are
specified in the enactments and cannot
pervade the field of civil litigation
which is exclusively that of the civil
Court. The learned Additional
Government Pleader invited our
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis attention to a Bench decision of this
Court in Raja of Vizianagaram, In re
Raja of Vizianagaram
(MANU/TN/0208/1953MANU/TN/020
8/1953 : AIR 1953 Mad 416), which,
according to him, has a bearing on the
case. A scrutiny of the judgment,
however reveals that the ratio decidendi
in that case has no application
whatever to the controversy raised for
decision in the appeal. In the above
said case, the Raja of Vizianagaram
contended that certain house-sites,
though forming part of the estate of
Vizianagaram, must be held to be sites
given free to the zamindar without any
additional assessment and that
therefore, the vacant sites must be held
to fall outside the scope of the
permanent settlement. Rajamannar,
C.J., and Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as he
then was), if we may say so with great
respect, rightly held that the contention
was fallacious because what happened
to the zamindar under the Sannad was
not confined to the lands on which
peishkush was calculated and that the
fact that in 1802, no income accrued to
the zamindar in the house-sites did not
really affect the question. It is also
significant to note that the Bench,
notwithstanding such a pronouncement
held, that "the right of the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to take over the house-sites also along
with the estate was however, subject to
the claim of the zamindar, if any, under
Section 12 and similar provisions of Act
XXVI of 1948 to be granted ryotwari
patta."
15. The facts of this case which have
already been expatiated by us have
reference to a house-site owned by a
person who is not an estate-holder and
the owner of the site, apart from being
entitled to the grant of a patta, is
equally conferred by law a right to
defend his possession and enjoyment. If,
instead of her action for compensation,
the plaintiff were to sue for an
injunction based on her right of
possession, her right to maintain the
civil action can never be questioned. In
like manner, when the plaintiff sues for
compensation for the deprivation of the
possession of her land, she is no way,
worse off than when maintaining her
action for retention of possession.
Therefore, the second contention of the
defendants to non-suit the plaintiff is a
futile one and has therefore been rightly
rejected by the trial Court.
Consequently, the first defendant, now
succeeded by the third defendant,
cannot escape its liability to pay
compensation to the plaintiff for the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis site, and the appeals by the second and
the third defendants have, therefore, to
fail.
17. In A. Srinivasan Vs. Tahsildar
[MANU/TN/3256/2009MANU/TN/3256/2009 :
2010 (3) MLJ 72], M. Jaichandran, J followed
the earlier decisions of this Court to hold that
gramanatham cannot be considered ipso facto as
Government property. Therefore, the Tahsildar
was held to be not entitled to invoke the
provisions of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment
Act, 1905.
18. In State of Tamilnadu Vs. Madasami
[MANU/TN/5348/2011MANU/TN/5348/2011 :
2012 (2) CTC 315], V. Periya Karuppiah, J
followed the decisions in A.K. Thillaivanam and
S. Rengaraja Iyengar.
19. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt Vs.
Raghavan
[MANU/TN/4308/2011MANU/TN/4308/2011 :
2012 (1) CTC 280], a Division Bench of this
Court pointed out that gramanatham is the
village habitation where the land owners may
build houses and reside. They are also known as
house sites. They are classified as gramanatham
to differentiate them from inam lands, ryotwari
lands, pannai lands and waste lands, which vest
in the Government. Therefore, after quoting with
approval, the decisions in S. Rengaraja Iyengar,
A.K. Thillaivanam and A. Srinivasan, the Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Bench reiterated the position that gramanatham
is not vested in the Government.
20. In Muthammal Vs. State of Tamilnadu
[MANU/TN/8321/2006MANU/TN/8321/2006 :
2006 (3) LW 361], the exposition of what a
poramboke land is and what a gramanatham is,
as presented by Mr. T.R. Mani, learned counsel
was extracted by S. Ashok Kumar, J in paragraph
8 as follows:
Learned Senior Counsel also clarified
that in Natham, first 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 (g[[wk;)" is
outside; "poke (nghf; F)" 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis as house sites; etc., Learned senior
counsel also relied on 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.
21. In Karana Maravar Service Society Vs. The
State of Tamilnadu & Another (Madurai Bench)
[MANU/TN/1496/2012MANU/TN/1496/2012 :
2012 (4) L.W. 92], the position was reiterated by
K.B.K. Vasuki, J. Therefore, it is clear that the
above position of law has held the field for over a
century. Keeping this fundamental settled position
of law in mind, let us now get back to the facts of
the case."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it can be seen that it has been held that the legal position has
held the field for over a century and that the mere fact that in the re-
settlement register, merely because the Gramanatham land is described as
Poramboke, will not, by itself, establish title of the Government to the land
in question.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Apart from the above judgments quoted, a learned Single Judge of
this Court in K.Ilangovan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore and Ors.6,
where similar eviction action was initiated in respect of Gramanatham land
on the ground that it has been described as Poramboke, after considering the
earlier decisions, in paragraph Nos.6, 7, and 8 ultimately held as follows :-
" ...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.
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."
16. In D.Shankar and Ors. Vs. Special Commissioner and
Commissioner for Land Administration and Ors.7, a Division Bench of this
Court was again concerned with the batch of petitions, in which, the
petitioners were sought to be evicted from Gramanatham lands. The
2014-1-LW430
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2014) 1 MLJ 818
Division Bench noted that the legal position is that the Gramanatham will
never vest in the Government. Again, in paragraph No.4, the Division
Bench gave a finding that the classification of the land as if it is Government
Poramboke in the Adangal and other Settlement Registers and at the same
time, describing it as Gramanatham, by itself is erroneous. It is essential to
quote paragraph No.4((iv) which reads as follows :-
" 4(iv) It is the further submission of the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that
the official respondent themselves were not clear
about the classification of the land for the reason
that as per the Permanent Land Record, it has
been shown as Government Poramboke and as
per the Adangal, it has been shown as Grama
Natham and in all the prior title deeds, the Old
Survey No. 178/1 has been shown as Grama
Natham and consequently, the petitioner is
entitled to receive the compensation amount. "
After holding so, the Division Bench directed in respect of the land to
be acquired in respect of the very same Chennai Metro Rail Project and
possession to be taken after disbursement of compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Again in respect of the very same CMRL requirement, when
petitioners in Gramanatham lands were sought to be evicted under the Act,
in T.S.Ravi's case (stated supra), the Division Bench considered the issue in
detail and once again reiterated legal position. Apart from the legal position
relating to the Gramanatham lands that the Government is not the
paramount owner, the Division Bench also considered the commercial use of
the land and held that merely because a portion of the land in that case was
used for commercial exploitation, that by itself will not confer title on the
Government. The Division Bench took notice of the fact that those villages,
in which the settlements were made, now become big cities, as such, the
residential portions, without any due course of time, have become areas of
carrying commercial activities and that will not vest title in the Government.
18. Further, yet another Division Bench considered the very same
issue in C.Lakshmanan Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai and Ors.8,
by relying upon the judgment in T.S.Ravi's case (stated supra) and held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MANU/TN/0615/2022
the Gramanatham land does not vest in the Government. As a matter of
fact, in the last of the judgment in A.Sacractice's case (cited supra) (in
which one of us was the party), once again the line of judgments were
traced out. It is useful to extract paragraph Nos.11 to 13 of the said
judgment which read as follows :-
" 11. As a matter of fact, this Court, right
from the Judgment in Palaniammal Vs.
Sethuraman Iyyengar [AIR 1949 Mad 814], has
categorically held that the 'Grama Natham' land
is the land set apart for the villagers to build
houses and such land does not vest with the
Government. As a matter of fact, an earlier
Division Bench of this Court in T.S.Ravi and Anr.
Vs. The District Collector, Tiruvallur and Ors.
(cited supra) has traced out the legal position in
all the earlier pronouncements and has
categorically held that as opposed to Ryotwari
lands for cultivation purposes, Grama Natham
lands is habitation for the land owners to built
houses and reside there and as a matter of fact,
under UDR scheme, these lands were surveyed
and the Government attempted to levy tax by a
scheme known as Natham Nilavari Patta and only
a Thoraya Patta, for tax purposes were issued in
respect of Grama Natham. After considering the
issue in detail, this Court has categorically held
that the Grama Natham land does not vest with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Government and the Government has no
paramount title to the land classified as Grama
Natham and thirdly, upon considering the
provisions of Section 2 of The Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act, 1905, the Act cannot be
invoked for the purpose of eviction of people who
are in occupation of the lands classified as Grama
Natham or to transfer the title in favour of the
Government by using such act.
12. As a matter of fact, in yet another
recent Judgment in W.P.No.6992 of 202, a
Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us,
the Hon-ble Acting Chief Justice is a member) has
again reiterated the said legal position. In view
thereof, we hold that when the land in question in
Adi~Dravidar Natham i.e., the Grama Natham
land which is meant for occupation by
Adi~Dravidars by putting up their houses, it
cannot be set to be Government interest lands so
as to made over to the CMRL without acquisition
of title.
13. Further, the question of grant of Patta
has been clearly dealt with earlier Division Bench
of this Court in T.S.Ravi & Another Vs. The
District Collector, Thiruvallur & Others (cited
supra) in paragraph No.32 whereby it is held that
the Patta does not confer title in respect of Grama
Natham, but is issued only under the 'Natham
Nilavari Thittam' that is the Natham Land Tax
Scheme only for the purpose of levying tax and
therefore, non~issue of Patta by itself will not vest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Government with the title. The very same
Division Bench had also considered in paragraph
No.27 that merely because the persons residing
have also built up shops and are using the
property partly by letting out the same as shops,
the same again will not make the land loose its
character and will not confer the title of the
Government."
19. In this matter, repeatedly, arguments are advanced before this
Court only on the premise that the land in question is shown as Government
Poramboke in the Natham Adangal or the Natham Settlement Scheme A-
Register and therefore, it vests with the Government. This is because of lack
of clarity regarding the different perspectives of the term "Poramboke". As
a matter of fact, the land tenure position in Tamil Nadu is a well documented
one. Useful reference can be made to "Land Law in Madras Presidency” by
Mr.B.R.Chakravarthi (High Court Vakil) Madras; P.R.Rama Iyar & Co
Printers (1927 Edition), Madras, as also the book "Land Tenures in the
Madras Presidency” by Mr.S.Sundararaja Iyengar, Advocate, High Court,
Madras; the Royal Printing Works, Mount Road, Madras (1933 Edition). In
both the above works, after dealing with the types of lands such as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Zamindari or over-lord tenure, Inam tenure, Ryotwari tenure and Under
tenures - Mirasi etc., the village system prevalent is explained in detail. To
advert to Mr. S. Sundararaja Iyengar’s work cited supra, a village,
geographically considered is a tract of country comprising some hundreds or
thousands of acres of arable and waste lands; politically viewed it is a little
republic or rather a corporation having within itself its municipal officers
and corporate officer. Every Tamil village is divided into (i) Warapat; (ii)
Tirwapat; (iii) Tarisu; and (iv) Poramboke Mr.S.Sundararaja Iyengar
explains the term "Poramboke" as being meant from three perspectives, that
is, cultivation, communal purpose and revenue. They are of various kinds
classified according to the purpose for which they have been set apart. In
common parlance, any land that does not yield revenue is known as
Poramboke. Thus, it can be seen that the word "Poramboke" as twin
connotations. Firstly, it would mean the lands which are used for public or
communal purposes, but, at the same time, it would include the land which
does not yield any revenue to the Government. It is in this context, the
Natham or Gramanatham lands are to be understood.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. The excerpts from Chapter - II relating to Gramanatham which
are relevant to the issue on hand reads as follows :-
"Nattam or gramanatham is a site on
which village habitations are situated, and is held
free of assessment. It is included in proamboke
and is known as nattam poramboke. It is on this
site that the villagers must build their houses.
This does not mean that they are absolutely
prevented from building their houses elsewhere,
but only they will have to pas the assessment fixed
on the land on which they build houses and
cannot claim to hold it free of assessment. In
nattam are included pilakadai or backyard of
houses, a small portion of ground immediately
adjoining the dwellings of villagers, and kollai or
homestead. Both are held free of assessment.......
The freehold in the soil of grammanattam in a
ryotwari village is in government. Its right
therein consists in regulating the distribution of
unoccupied nattam among the intending
applicants for house sites and to ensure its
utilization for such purpose. The owners of
houses and house sites in nattam as well as
grantees of unoccupied nattam who have satisfied
the condition of the grant by building houses are
at liberty to dispose of them in any manner they
choose...... The classification of land as nattam
poramboke or government poramboke by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis revenue authorities is not conclusive as to the
character of the land as poramboke; nor does
the omission to describe it as such prevent the
government from showing that it is really
poramboke; nor does the mere description in the
settlement register as temple poramboke vest any
title in the temple."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it can be seen that those who are already in inhabitation of the
village Natham or Gramanatham are the absolute owners having title to
dispose of the same. Therefore, the contentions that it cannot be more than 3
cents or the commercial use entitles the Government to resort to the Act are
without any merit.
21. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
22. In the above back ground, the Government of Tamil Nadu made
an endeavour to bring clarity in respect of all the three types of
Gramanatham by framing a scheme for assessment and collection of land
revenue from the owners of Gramanatham property which is known as
Natham Settlement Scheme in G.O. Ms. No.869, Commercial Taxes and
Charitable Endowments Department, dated 30.09.2023, under which the
persons who are already in occupation were sought to be recognised by grant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of ‘Thoraya Patta’ or ‘Tentative Patta’. Though a majority of the occupants
of natham have approached the respondents or participated in the Natham
Survey and obtained the Natham Thoraya Patta and are paying tax, it is
common knowledge that it is not a complete or exhaustive exercise as many
of the owners did not participate to avoid assessment and payment of tax.
Thus, merely because, the concerned occupant’s name is not reflected in the
Natham Adangal, prepared in this regard, the same is not a conclusive proof
that it is an unoccupied Natham or a public purpose Poramboke. However,
the fact that remains that all the occupants
23. A learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to consider
the effect of such entries in A-Register in S.Sridhar and Ors. Vs. The State
of Tamil Nadu and Ors.9. It is useful to extract paragraph Nos.13.3, 13.4,
13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 which read as follows :-
" 13.3. India has three types of properties
such as (1) Agricultural; (2) Non-Agricultural;
and (3) Common properties. By social practice,
one can see a set of new unrecorded conventions
and power structure with reference to private
properties. However, private property was never
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MANU/TN/5902/2020
documented in ancient Indian literatures. It is
relevant to point out at this juncture that the
Indian Land Administration derives its genesis
from "Land Revenue Administration" where every
land record created aimed at tapping the Revenue
to the Government.
13.4. The whole area of a Tamil village
dating to ancient Chola period and thereafter,
was divided into various classifications, one
among which, as Poramboke lands. The
poramboke lands are incapable of cultivation or
set apart for public or communal purposes.
Though there are various types of poramboke
lands, in common parlance, any land that does
not yield revenue, is known as poramboke land,
but it is liable to tax, however the right to levy
assessment on it, is given up by the Government
for certain reasons. The four main classifications
of waste lands under Ryotwari System that exist
today, are (a) assessed (b) unassessed (c)
poramboke and (d) reserved. The poramboke
denotes lands set apart for public or communal
purposes. They are also unassessed. The free-
hold in these four classes of lands is in
Government. Nattam or Grama nattam is the site
on which village habitations are situated and is
held free of assessment. Except the nattam
poramboke, which is permitted for inhabitation,
all other poramboke such as lake, river, hill,
grazing ground, cattle pond, forest and similar
classification of poramboke of public use or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
common use are completely protected from any
kind of people's enjoyment.
13.7. To answer this issue, it is necessary
to set out briefly the Columns found in the 'A'
Register Extract. There cannot be any dispute
that the entries in 'A' Register do not confer title
to anybody as it is not a title document and it is
only a record of those particulars which are
relevant to determine the land revenue due from
those lands. Each one of the 12 columns of the 'A'
Register signifies the extent and quantum of land
revenue payable by the owners of those lands to
the State.
13.8. Column Nos. 1 and 2 denote the old
and new survey numbers of the property; Column
No. 3 indicates whether the title of the property is
with the Government or with Ryotwari Patta
Holder; Column No. 4 denotes whether it is a
nanja (wet) or punja (dry) land on which land tax
shall be payable or poramboke land on which no
land tax is payable; Column No. 5 indicates
whether two-time crops are taken or not; Column
Nos. 6 and 7 indicate the quality and grade of the
indicate the area, rate of land tax and total land
tax payable with reference to the entries in
Column Nos. 4 to 7; Column No. 11 indicates the
name of the Ryotwari Patta Holder with reference
indicates the purpose for which the land has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis set apart, for the purpose of waiving land revenue
with reference to the entry in Column Nos. 3 and
4, as Government lands and those lands that
come under the category of poramboke in
Column No. 4, are exempted from the payment of
land revenue and consequently give the reason
for exemption from Land Revenue.
13.9. As no land revenue is payable on
poramboke lands, there will be no entries in
and 11 of 'A' Register, whereas in the case of
Ryotwari patta lands, all the columns except
Column No. 12, shall have entries for the purpose
of computation of appropriate land tax. "
Thus, viewed from any angle, it can be seen that the petitioner's
predecessors in title who are the original occupants of the Gramanatham
land and absolute owners and merely because they chose to deduct the
property towards the charitable trust and the charitable trust has put up
commercial structures for augmenting income for its purpose, it will not in
any manner divest the title in the petitioners.
24. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following
terms :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) The impugned order of the second respondent, dated 24.08.2023
and 25.08.2023 shall stand quashed;
(ii) However, if the land is required for public purposes, it would be
open for the respondents 1 to 3 or the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate
acquisition proceedings in accordance with law;
(iii) The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that in that event,
the petitioner will surrender possession subject to its rights of proper
compensation, is recorded;
(iv) However, there shall be no order as to costs;
(v) Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.25001 and 25002 of 2023 are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
22.11.2023
Index : yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Tiruvallur - 602 001.
2. The Revenue Inspector,
Taluk Office, Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur - 600 056.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur - 600 056.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
