Madras High Court
K.Ilangovan vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2013
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.11.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P. No.18754 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.20304 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.2613 of 2005 K.Ilangovan .. Petitioner ..vs.. 1.The District Collector, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 2.The Sub Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. 3.The Tahsildhar, Udumalaipettai, Coimbatore District. ...Respondents Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the Grama natham land in Survey No.1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District to a total extent of 1.38 acres. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents : Mr.S.Navaneethan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the Grama natham land in Survey No.1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District measuring an extent of 1.38 acres.
2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:
He is the permanent resident in Marulpatty village in Udumalaipettai Taluk. Himself and three of his brothers who constitute a joint family are in possession and enjoyment of grama natham land in Survey No.1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty, measuring an extent of 1.38 acres in total. They are in possession and enjoyment for more than 60 years. The respondents did not assess the petitioner and his brothers for penal charges and they did not issue any 'B' Memo to them so far and their enjoyment is without any interference by the respondents. The entire land is used as a house site wherein they have put up a pucca tiled house by paying house tax and other taxes to the village panchayat. They also put up a cattle shed and also planted coconut saplings in the rest of the land. Due to the instigation of some people who are inimical against the petitioner and his brothers, the third respondent threatened the petitioner to evict him from the premises. The petitioner also made a representation to the respondents on 18.05.2005, explaining their enjoyment over the property and sought for granting patta in their favour taking into consideration of their long and continuous possession. When the said request was not considered and the respondents have threatened to evict the petitioner at any moment, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3.The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:
The disputed survey numbers are natham poramboke lands and the writ petitioner and his brothers are rich pattadars. They encroached the said land which was meant for grant of patta to houseless poor and agricultural labourers. Even though the encroachment is not booked by 'B' Memo, the public and houseless poor persons have not put up huts on the above land out of fear over the petitioner's family.
4.Mr.V.Bharathidhasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his brothers are in possession and enjoyment of the property, which is a grama natham for more than 60 years and the respondents are not having any right over the said land classified as grama natham. He also invited this court attention to the decisions made in 1998(3) LW 603, A.K.Thillaivanam v. The District Collector, Chengai Anna District, 2004(3) CTC 270, The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V.Swaminathan, 2012(2)CTC 315, State of Tamilnadu, rep. By the Collector, Virudhunagar v. Madasami in support of his submission that the respondents are not having any right over the grama natham land to proceed against the petitioner.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has encroached upon the land which is meant for granting patta to the landless poor and agricultural labourers.
6.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.
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. 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 (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 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) CTC 270, The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V.Swaminathan and others, such view of the learned Single Judge was once again approved at paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 as follows:
"11.Similarly, this Court in Thillaivanam, A.K. And another v. District Collector, Chengai Anna District and 3 others, 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 '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:
"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 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 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.
04.11.2013
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vri
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
VRI
To
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Sub Collector,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Tahsildhar,
Udumalaipettai,
Coimbatore District.
W.P.No.18754 of 2005
04.11.2013