Madras High Court

R.Mahendrakumar vs The District Collector on 2 April, 2025

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh

                                                                                           WP.No.9246 of 2024



                                          In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                                                       Dated : 02.4.2025

                                                                Coram :

                                      The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                              Writ Petition No.9246 of 2024 &
                                              WMP.Nos.10281 & 10283 of 2024


                     1.R.Mahendrakumar
                     2.N.S.Krishnakumar                                                    ...Petitioners
                                                                    Vs
                     1.The District Collector,
                       Collectorate Office,
                       Chennai-1.

                     2.The Managing Director,
                       the Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.,
                       CMRL Depot, Nandanam,
                       Chennai-35.

                     3.The District Revenue Officer
                       & Legal Officer, Land
                       Acquisition, the Chennai
                       Metro Rail Ltd., CMRL Depot,
                       Nandanam, Chennai-35.                                               ...Respondents



                                  PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying

                     for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file

                     of the third respondent in Rc.No.7/LC-13/CMRL-2022 dated 07.3.2024

                     and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.


                     1/11




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )
                                                                                             WP.No.9246 of 2024



                                        For Petitioners        :        Mr.V.Raghavachari, SC for
                                                                        Mrs.V.Srimathi

                                        For R1 & R3            :        Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP

                                        For R2                 :        Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
                                                                        assisted by
                                                                        Mr.B.Vijay, Standing Counsel


                                                                   ORDER

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash

the proceedings of the third respondent dated 07.3.2024.

2. Heard both parties.

3. The case of the petitioners is as follows :

(i) The property in R.S.Nos.26 & 27, Block No.12, Reddy Street,

Villivakkam, Chennai originally belonged to one Mr.Munisamy Reddiar.

The subject property was classified as a grama natham. Later, the said

Mr.Munisamy Reddiar executed a sale deed dated 31.10.1914 in

favour of one Mr.Subburaya Chettiar and two others. Thereafter, the

subject property was inherited by their legal heirs and ultimately, a

partition deed was entered into on 18.1.1984 registered as doc.No.232

of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet, by which, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

subject property was allotted to the father of the first petitioner. The

second petitioner is none other than the paternal uncle of the first

petitioner.

(ii) An attempt was made to take over the subject property

without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Hence, the petitioners and two others filed W.P.No.25780 of 2021

before this Court seeking to forbear the respondents therein from

acquiring the subject property without complying with the mandatory

provisions of acquisition for the purpose of constructing a metro rail

project. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single

Judge of this Court on 13.12.2021 and the respondents therein were

restrained from acquiring the subject property except by due process

of law.

(iii) Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Government had

accorded permission to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited to enter into

the subject property and proceed further with the work for

implementing the project. Based on that, a notice was served on the

first petitioner, who, in turn, submitted all the relevant documents. On

receipt of the same, the impugned proceedings dated 07.3.2024 came

to be issued by the third respondent and thereby, an attempt was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

made to take over possession of the subject property after considering

the same as a government poramboke land. Aggrieved by that, the

present writ petition has been filed.

4. When the above writ petition came up for hearing on

05.4.2024, this Court passed the following order :

"Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that without prejudice to the rights of the parties, they will deposit the constructing cost as well as the land cost to the credit of the writ petition. According to him, Chennai Metro Rail Limited requires 139 sq.mts. in permanent basis and 400 sq.mts. in temporary basis.

2. For calculation and filing a report in this regard, post on 23.4.2024."

5. When the case was once again listed for hearing on

13.3.2025, this Court passed the following order :

"When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the CMRL submitted that pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court, the total compensation amount for both the land and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

superstructure has been included and it comes to the tune of Rs.3,72,29,124/-. The learned Standing counsel submitted that this amount will be

deposited by the 2nd respondent. Ultimately, the amount will be paid as per the directions issued by this Court in the present writ petition, since the property in question has been shown as a grama natham in the revenue records and the petitioners are claiming right over the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seek for some time to take instructions in this case.

3. Post this case on 18.03.2025 along with WP Nos.6795, 4936, 6514 and 6015 of 2025."

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the

learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on

record and more particularly the impugned order.

7. The respondents are attempting to take over the subject

property on the premise that the subject property is a grama natham

poramboke. They have assessed the total value of the subject property

including the superstructure at Rs.3,72,29,124/-. The first petitioner is

not willing to receive this compensation amount on the ground that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

compensation has been fixed by taking the market value at a very low

rate whereas the first petitioner is entitled for a higher compensation

going by the present market value that is prevailing in the locality.

8. In the considered view of this Court, it is quite evident from

the records that the subject property is a grama natham land. The title

is traced from the year 1914 onwards and the subject property has

been occupied by the predecessor in title as well as the petitioners for

over a century. In such circumstances, the subject property cannot be

categorized or classified as a government poramboke land.

9. This Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of grama

natham land in the case of N.S.Krishnamurthi & Others Vs.

District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri [W.P.No.4936

of 2025 etc. cases dated 26.3.2025] wherein the relevant portion

is extracted as hereunder :

"48. From a reading of the precedents, the following conclusions emerge:

"(i) Where the grama natham land is occupied and such occupation has been recognized by the State by way of successive transfers etc.,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

the land is the private property of the occupant. Such lands cannot be regarded as Government property nor can they be regarded as encroachments by virtue of the exception contained in Section 2 of the Act.

(ii) By virtue of the decision in the case of T.S.Ravi, the reclassification of grama natham, which is occupied, cannot be done, as the State cannot deprive the rights acquired by the citizen by reclassifying such property. The State of Tamil Nadu is bound by the law declared in the said decision, which it has accepted by withdrawing the appeals filed against the said judgment before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.12210 of 2019 on 31.10.2023.

(iii) Where the land is unoccupied, the paramount title to these lands would vest in the State, in public trust, to be dealt with according to the Revenue Standing Orders.

(iv) In cases where unoccupied grama natham is temporarily or recently occupied and there is no evidence of any recognition of such occupation by the State, here too the position is akin to what is set out in paragraph 48(iii) supra.

The position would also be the same in respect of an occupant of grama natham lands, against whom, the State has levied prohibitory assessment under the Act by issuing B Memos.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

(v) Persons in unauthorized occupation or encroachers of unoccupied grama natham may be evicted through the mechanism of the Act namely the Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

(vi) The circular dated 07.8.2015 issued by the then Additional Commissioner for Land Administration has been quashed by a Division Bench in the case of Babu. Consequently, the State is bound to respect the declaration of law and any attempt to resurrect the said circular would be viewed seriously and this Court would not hesitate to initiate proceedings for contempt against the Commissioner of Land Administration if such attempts are made to indirectly interfere in the administration of justice by undermining a series of judicial orders.

(vii) The Commissioner for Land Administration shall issue a circular in line with the conclusions set out supra, in paragraph 48(i) to

(v). The circular shall further instruct that the concerned Revenue Authorities will now be required to examine an application for patta in respect of grama natham lands by applying the guidelines contained in the circular to be issued. The needful be done by the Commissioner for Land Administration within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:10 pm )

10. It is very clear from the said common order dated 26.3.2025

that in so far as an occupied grama natham is concerned, such lands

cannot be regarded as the government poramboke lands nor can they

be regarded as encroachments. Hence, the right acquired by the

occupants cannot be deprived by classifying the lands as poramboke

lands. If at all the subject property is required for the project of the

CMRL, proceedings will have to be initiated under the Tamil Nadu

Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act and the subject property

has to be acquired.

11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned

proceedings is hereby quashed and liberty is granted to the