Madras High Court
The Tahsildar vs Mr.T.Elumalai on 3 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:1238
W.A.No.1014 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.1014 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.8262 & 9555 of 2025
The Tahsildar,
Sankarapuram,
Kallakurichi District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Mr.T.Elumalai
2.The Superintendent Electricity Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kallakurichi.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
Pudupattu, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 12.09.2024 made in W.P.No.33767 of 2022 and allow this
writ appeal.
Page 1 of 68
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm )
W.A.No.1014 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ramanlaal
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.M.Ganesan
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Swami Subramaniam
Standing Counsel
For TANGEDCO
JUDGMENT
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Under assail is the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022. The appellant before this Court is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.
2. The 1st respondent, Mr.T.Elumalai instituted the writ proceedings in W.P.No.33767 of 2022, seeking an electricity service connection for the disputed subject property from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The respondents 2 and 3 representing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, called for information from the appellant/Tahsildar, about the subject land in question.
Page 2 of 68https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
3. In response, the appellant informed that the land in question is classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Natham”. Relying on the report of the appellant, the respondents 2 and 3 rejected the application submitted by the 1st respondent seeking electricity service connection.
Consequently, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition challenging the order of rejection.
4. The learned Single Judge impleaded the appellant as the 3rd respondent in the writ petition and consequently issued a direction to grant patta in favour of the 1st respondent vide order dated 30.06.2023. On examining the documents submitted by the 1st respondent, the appellant found them to be forged and fabricated. A report was submitted to the District Collector, Kallakurichi, who in turn passed an order vide proceedings dated 09.10.2023, refusing to issue patta in favour of the 1st respondent.
5. The appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No.533 of 2024 to set aside the order dated 30.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022, mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given by the Writ Court to the appellant/Tahsildar before issuing a direction to grant patta in favour of the 1st respondent. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the writ order impugned and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for Page 3 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 fresh consideration.
6. The learned Single Judge re-considered the writ petition in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench and allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the appellant/Tahsildar to issue patta in favour of the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks. The Court also directed the respondents 2 and 3 herein to entertain the application seeking electricity service connection and provide the same. Additionally, a direction was issued to the District Collector to initiate action against the Revenue Officials, who have failed to issue patta without following the provisions of the Revenue Standing Orders (RSO).
7. The Writ Court further observed that if the land is required for public purposes, it may be acquired by following the due process of law.
Aggrieved by the said writ order impugned, the present Intra-Court appeal came to be instituted.
8. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the land in question is classified as Government Poromboke Vacant Natham [hereinafter referred to as 'Natham']. The 1st respondent is not entitled to Page 4 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 patta for Natham land because he already possesses 5 acres of land in Survey Nos.140/10A, 140/12, 30/1A, 30/4, 29/4 and 140/10B, with patta standing in the name of the 1st respondent in Patta Nos.458 and 451 respectively. Additionally, the 1st respondent further possesses a house building in a land measuring to an extent of 5 Cents.
9. Therefore, as per the Revenue Standing Orders, he is not entitled to patta. More so, the 1st respondent is an encroacher utilised the encroached portion of Natham land for constructing a commercial building for personal gains. According to the Revenue Standing Orders, Natham land is meant for house sites, which is to be allotted by the Government to the poor, landless people by following the guidelines under RSO 21.
10. Thus, the 1st respondent has not approached this Court with clean hands, and therefore, the writ petition ought to have been rejected in limine.
11. Regarding the fraudulent documents produced by the 1st respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the 1st respondent claims that he has purchased the property by means of a registered Sale Deed dated 18.02.2022 registered as Document No.412/2019 in the office of the Sub-Registrar of North, Ponparappai. The Page 5 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Sale Deed was executed by Elumalai S/o. Thambi Muniyan, and Subraminan S/o. Periyathambi.
12. The aforementioned name reflects in the (Natham Land Tax Scheme Chitta) as Survey No.344. The above said name is an insertion as the relevant documents starts from page 39, the name of holder in Survey No.344, one Mr.John Basha Sahib S/o. Sathar Sahib at Column No.3, serial number starts from 344 running serial wise. The copy of the said document produced before this Court would also reveal that Survey No.344 is an insertion. Thus, the 1st respondent has played fraud and inserted those names despite the fact that no patta was issued to them.
13. The transfer of registry number is not related to Periyathambi S/o.
Nallathambi, and Subramanian S/o. Periyathambi. The transfer of registry refers TK8A-145-1418 dated 26.06.2015 is made available. The TK refers to subdivision 8A, but that subdivision refers to a different survey number and 1418 refers to the Fasli year – 1418 refers to year 2008. However, the order in TK8A is dated 26.06.2015, which appears to be a forgery and unrelated to the land in question.
14. The Sale Deed refers to the following documents:
Page 6 of 68https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 (1) Form 4, Rough Patta;
(2) Death Certificate dated 10.12.2008 of Periyathambi;
(3) Legal Heirship Certificate of Periyathambi dated 18.09.2019;
(4) Death Certificate of Nallathambi dated 10.12.2008;
(5) Death Certificate of Karuppayi, mother of Nallathambi dated 10.12.2008, (6) Death Certificate of Pappathi dated 10.12.2008 were annexed.
However, all these documents are identified as forged. The document was registered on 18.02.2022, but the patta appears to have been changed as if on 23.07.2019. As per the Sale Deed, the property was sold by Subramanian S/o. Periyathambi to Thambi Muniyan S/o. Elumalai.
However, the names of these individuals are not found in the patta. Instead, the name "Indrani, wife of Thambi," is found.
15. The authorities found that all the documents produced by the 1st respondent for grant of patta are forged and fabricated. The Village Administrative Officer (VAO), who has allegedly involved in the commission of offence, was placed under suspension, and the prosecution is also in progress.
16. Under these circumstances, the writ order would not only cause Page 7 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 prejudice to the public interest but also result in unjust gain to the 1 st respondent, who has encroached the Natham land by producing forged and fabricated documents.
17. Mr.M.Ganesan, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would oppose by stating that the 1st respondent purchased the subject property through a Sale Deed dated 18.02.2022, vide Document No.412/2022, from Mr.Subramanian, S/o Periyathambi. The 1st respondent is constructing a house and has raised walls on the property. He applied for electricity service connection and it was rejected, therefore he filed a writ petition.
18. The appellant/Tahsildar was impleaded in the writ petition.
Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed a petition seeking amendment of the prayer for restoration of patta, which stood in the name of the 1st respondent during the pendency of the writ petition.
19. The 1st respondent mainly contended that he is the purchaser of the property and as far as the Natham lands are concerned, the Government cannot claim ownership as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court. Thus, the present writ appeal is to be rejected.
Page 8 of 68https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
20. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is in occupation of Natham land, which is classified as “Government Poromboke Kalinatham”. Natham lands are meant for construction of houses, and therefore the Revenue officials have no power to raise objection to the 1st respondent for seeking new electricity service connection.
21. In the context of the above background, the issues that arise for consideration are as follows:
(1) Whether a person in occupation of Natham land can be declared as an absolute owner without reference to a grant by the Government in accordance with RSO 21.
(2) Whether Government has the power to regulate the Natham lands, which is to be allotted for dwelling purposes to landless poor people in terms of RSO 21, and for other public usages.
(3) Whether unilateral occupation of Natham land by any person would confer any title or ownership to the person who occupies it or whether such a person could be construed as an encroacher, and can be evicted by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
22. No person can be allowed to claim title or ownership of the land in Page 9 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 the absence of the authority of law. Mere occupation of the land, including Natham land, would not confer title or ownership in the absence of any authority of law. Ownership or title must be established legally, and mere possession would be insufficient.
23. The legal position regarding Natham lands, including power of the Government to regulate the same in accordance with RSO 21, has been elaborately considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the context of various judgments, its scope, and applicability in the case of S.Anbananthan vs. The District Collector, Perambalur District1.
24. The eligibility criteria for the allotment of Natham land to landless poor people shall be considered in terms of RSO 21 by the Revenue Authorities. Mere possession of Natham land without reference to the extent of the land in terms of RSO 21 would not confer any title or ownership. If rights are conferred, it will lead to lawlessness, and greedy men with muscle and political power alone can occupy such Natham lands to a larger extent for their personal gain, by depriving landless poor people for securing allotments from the hands of the Revenue Authorities in consonance with RSO 21.
1. 2024 MHC 168 Page 10 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
25. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of N.S.Krishnamoorthi vs. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District2, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 26.03.2025, holding that the judgment of the Division Bench in S.Ananandan's case cited supra is per incuriam. Thus, it is just and necessary for this Division Bench to further go into the legal principles and the judgments earlier considered by this Court in the context of Natham lands, to meet the ends of justice.
HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION OF “GRAMA NATHAM”:
A. PREAMBLE:
26. Tamil Nadu is home to one of the oldest civilizations in the sub-
continent. Since time immemorial, people have lived in settlements constructing residential houses of different types. A typical Tamil village may be considered to have one or more habitations surrounded by cultivated agricultural lands. Though civilization of such a format dates back to antiquity, modern land revenue administration has evolved only since British times, over two centuries ago. Modern land administration is also interconnected with the question of Title to the land whose jurisprudence also dates back to colonial times.
27. Among the various types of land as classified by the nature of the
2. 2025 MHC 790 Page 11 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 land tenure system being followed, Grama Natham is a special type of land.
Differing judicial pronouncements, executive decisions and common-
sensical interpretations, often contradictory to each other have led to considerable differences in understanding of the character of the land.
There is a need to comprehensively explicate the meaning and nature of Grama Natham and harmoniously interpret the various pronouncements and provisions hitherto existing.
B. DEFINITION:
28. The phrase “Grama Natham” means the ground set apart, on which the houses of a village may be built,, as per Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms in British India, 1855.
29. According to the book “Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency” by Mr.S.Sundararaja Iyengar, Advocate, High Court, Madras, (1933) “…Every Tamil village is divided into (i) Warapat; (ii) Tirwapat; (iii) Tarisu and (iv) Poramboke.” The term “Poramboke” is explained as being meant from three perspectives, that is cultivation, communal purpose and revenue. They are 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 Page 12 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 word “Poramboke” has 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.
In this context, the Natham or Gramanatham lands are to be understood.
30. The excerpts from Chapter – II relating to Grama Natham which are relevant to the issue on hand reads as follows:-
“Natham or Grama Natham is a site on which village habitations are situated, and is held free of assessment. It is included in Poramboke and is known as Natham Poramboke. It is on this side 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 pass the assessment fixed on the land on which they build houses and cannot claim to hold it free of assessment. In Natham are included Pilakadai or backyard of houses, a small portion of ground immediately adjoining the dwellings of the villagers and kollai or homestead. Both are free of assessment… The freehold in the soil of Gramanatham in a Ryotwari village is in Government. Its right therein consists in regulating the distribution of unoccupied natham among the intending applications for house sites and to ensure its Page 13 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 utilisation for such purpose. The owners of houses and house sites in natham as well as grantees of unoccupied natham 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 natham poramboke or Government Poramboke by the revenue authorities is not conclusive as to the character of the land is 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.”
6. 'Grama Natham' has been defined in the Law Lexicon as follows:-
“Ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built".
C. DISPOSAL OF GRAMA NATHAM LANDS BY THE STATE:
31. Since time immemorial, vacant lands in Natham lands have been assigned to houseless poor as house sites under Revenue Standing Order
21. This is in contrast to the assignment of land for agricultural or other purposes under the Revenue Standing Order 21, or the alienation of land for Public Purposes under Revenue Standing Order 24.
Page 14 of 68https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
32. The relevant portion of RSO 21 is extracted as below:
General – (i) Scale of grant : Portions of natham or village site at the disposal of Government, not being land required for the common use of the villagers, may be granted for building purposes to bonafide applicants. The maximum extent that could be assigned to any applicant for building houses is 1.25 ares. But the Tahsildars have discretion to grant a smaller extent in special circumstances, if, for instance the grant of an extent of 1.25 ares would encroach too much upon the area available for future assignments or the extent encroached upon already is less than 1.25 ares. In cases, where the extent is more than 1.25 ares and where it cannot conveniently be sub-divided for grant to another person, assignment may be ordered under this R.S.O on collection of market value as per the norms fixed by the Government, from time to time. The assignment in all cases shall be subject to the conditions of the orders of the assignment referred to in paragraph 7 below. In assigning lands for house sites care should be taken to see that land is not granted to persons already possessing enough land for their reasonable requirements and that preference is given to those who own no house site and whose family’s income does not exceed Rs.12,000/- per annum. People belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are to be given priority in assigning house sites.Page 15 of 68
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
33. Extension of village sites: Revenue Standing Order 21(6) deals with extension of village sites (Grama Natham). Where existing village site is not sufficient for the needs of the resident villagers, in which case, assessed waste can be transferred to the village site poramboke by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Collector is competent to transfer all unobjectionable poramboke to village sites, thus lending credibility to the view that the Government has rights over the Natham lands.
34. Further, where availability of vacant lands in Grama Natham is not adequate to provide assignment to the houseless poor, unobjectionable Government poramboke lands are identified to be provided as house sites to the houseless poor. Before assignment of such lands, the classification of these lands is converted to Natham and only then the house sites are assigned to the poor. Notably, for assignment of house sites to members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe communities, private patta lands are acquired for the purpose of assignment, and converted into Natham, before being assigned to persons belonging to the SC/ST Communities.
35. It is to be noted that the above limits on extent and eligibility have been modified from time to time by the Government but do not appear to Page 16 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 have been incorporated in the Revenue Standing Orders. Illustratively, assignment of lands in the vicinity of Corporations or District Headquarters has been banned since the 1980s. It is high time to incorporate the limits and re-issue the Revenue Standing Order 21 to avoid mischief by assigning valuable lands quoting the earlier provisions without taking into cognizance the subsequent developments.
36. No one can occupy a land, including Natham land and declare himself/herself to be the owner as against the right of other subjects under the sovereign authority. The concept of first occupier is not accepted in a decision reported in D.Sankar and others vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and others3.
37. The corollary is that an individual's claim of right by mere occupation would defeat the sovereign rights of the 'State' and the rights of all other citizens in rem over the land so occupied. Ownership, including the right to possess, control and use, can be conferred and recognised only by the sovereign power under the authority of law. Otherwise, such occupation of land, including Natham land in the present case, has no legal right and it is illegal.
3. 2014 (1) MLJ 818 Page 17 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
38. There cannot be any land within the territory of Union of India without an owner. The 'State', as a sovereign authority, is the owner of all lands declared under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, viz. List II Entry 18 of the Constitution of India.
39. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with sale.
As per Section 54, sale is a transfer of ownership. So to have ownership, there are three ways to establish the same:
(a) Must have a prescriptive title, like that of the State as a dominant owner;
(b) Patta, which recognizes occupation, so one has to establish the ownership and;
(c) Any prescriptive title against Government through adverse possession.
40. None of the decisions relied on earlier for granting relief have considered Natham lands by taking into account the definition as a “owned house site”, inclusive of extent, which has a reference to RSO 21 in the context of Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
The relevant portion of RSO 21 is extracted hereunder:
“3. Treatment of unauthorized occupation:- (i) Village site not to be appropriated Page 18 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 without previous permission: Collectors will assert the prerogative of Government by making it known in all Government villages that village site cannot be appropriated without permission previously obtained.
(ii) Consequence of such appropriation:- If any portion of the village site is appropriated without permission and if the occupation is considered to be objectionable, the provisions of Act III 1905 should be applied in accordance with the instructions contained in Standing Order No.26. If the occupant is found to be entitled to an allotment and the occupation is unobjectionable the site may be formally granted in accordance with the rule, contained in paragraph 2 above and to penalty or at most a mere nominal penalty, should be imposed unless special circumstancess render the imposition of penalty desirable.
(iii) Responsibility of Village Administrative Officers: Village Administrative Officers will be held responsible for presenting and reporting encroachments.”
41. In the context of the aforementioned facts, this Court is inclined to consider the decisions that are in favour of the Government and those that are against the Government, despite the fact that some of the judgments were earlier considered by this Bench in S.Anbananthan's case cited Page 19 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 supra. This Court has drawn-up a Tabular Column comprising of cases from the year 1903 onwards for better understanding of the case laws on the subject:
Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government The Taluk Board, Dindigul vs. Kuppuswami Odayar vs. Panchayat Venkatramier and Ors [AIR 1924 Narthangudi, [1970 SCC OnLine Mad MAD 197] 97] This case addressed whether the The appellants filed a suit (O.S. No. Government could assign or permit 351 of 1962) seeking a declaration of construction (specifically, a Girls’ ownership and fishery rights over a School) on land classified as Natham tank, or alternatively, for recovery of Poramboke, traditionally used by possession. They claimed over a villagers for residence. century of ownership and leasing of Villagers opposed the move, claiming fishery rights, supported by documents that Grama Natham is communal land, from as early as 1873. The dispute and they had a customary right to use arose when the local panchayat it. They argued that the Government attempted to auction the fishery rights had no authority to reassign such land. in 1962, asserting the tank was on The Madras High Court (Division natham poromboke land and therefore Bench) rejected this argument. It held Government property vested in the that: Panchayat under the Madras Natham land remains under Panchayats Act.
Government ownership, though The lower courts dismissed the typically used for village residence. appellants' claim, relying primarily on a The Government has the right to resettlement register (Ex. B-1) from regulate or assign such land, 1925 that recorded the land as Page 20 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government especially when it is unoccupied. poromboke, and misconstruing statements by the appellants as Unlike other communal lands (e.g., burial grounds, grazing admissions. lands), natham lands do not This Court held that the lower courts enjoy immunity from Government control. misunderstood and misapplied the law. The Court emphasized that custom or It clarified that:
local usage cannot override sovereign 1. Labeling land as poromboke in a government register does rights, and the Government may not establish government repurpose such land for public welfare, ownership. including schools. 2. Adverse possession can be established by long, open, and uninterrupted exercise of ownership, such as leasing fishery rights.
3. A lack of leases for certain years does not break the continuity of possession if the start and end points of long-
term possession are proven.
4. The fact that the appellant was a village munsif (revenue officer) does not negate personal ownership unless proven to be acting in that official capacity.
Jayaram Naidu Vs. Secretary of State of Madras vs. Kasthuri Ammal State [AIR 1929 Mad 441] and Ors [1973 SCC OnLine Mad 203] The suit was filed by an individual It is a land acquisition matter for the against the state claiming that piece of water tank. Compensation was denied Natham land belongs to them by the for the reason that it is a common virtue of long enjoyment. This Court poramboke land, so compensation is Page 21 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government discussed the matter in detail, referred not payable and hence the suit. The the earlier citations and held that it is State contended that part of the land is the discretion of the Government to road poramboke and the remaining grant/assign to persons who have portion is natham poramboke and has applied for building purpose and that been taken under the Inam Abolition the declaration of title is negative. Act, 1963. The Learned Single Judge after discussing the factual aspects as well as the legal position, held that the land, which was already in the possession of the private individual by way of two Sale Deeds, therefore, she is entitled for compensation relying upon the judgment of Rengaraja Iyengar vs. Achikannu Ammal.
Palani Ammal vs. L. Sethuram A.K.Thillaivanam and Ors. vs.. The Aiyangar [1949 SCC OnLine Mad 4] District Collector, Chengai Anna District [1997 SCC OnLine Mad 977] The central issue in this case was the nature of Natham land and whether the The petitioners claimed ownership plaintiff, a co-owner of the inam village, based on a registered sale deed had the right to recover possession of executed in 1954 and had since such land. The defendant argued that converted the land into cultivable use Natham was communal property and and later developed it into 42 thus not subject to individual ownership residential plots. or recovery by a co-owner. However, Subsequently, criminal proceedings this court held that Natham is not were initiated against them, alleging communal property in the strict legal that they had sold government land, sense, such as burning grounds or and the petitioners were accused under Page 22 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government thrashing floors that are reserved for Section 420 IPC. The petitioners, community use. Instead, if Natham land however, asserted that they had been is unoccupied, it is typically assigned by in exclusive possession since 1954, the village proprietor or inamdar. In this and had been issued D-memos case, since the land was not communal (demand memos), typically used by poromboke and the plaintiff was an authorities to record occupation over inamdar, he was entitled to reclaim government land.
possession. The Learned Single Judge, taking into account the admitted long possession, observed that the land being natham did not vest with the Government and the possession was not shown to be unauthorized or penalized under the Land Encroachment Act. Relying on precedents like Palaniammal v.
Sethurama Iyengar and Rangaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal, the Court held that the petitioners had perfected their title by prescription (adverse possession).
Accordingly, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their title and restraining the government from interfering with their possession or prosecuting them.
Page 23 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government
In a case of Zonal Officer – V, Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Corporation of Chennai vs. K. Panchayat vs. Swaminathan and Narasa Reddy, Kances Ors. [2004 SCC OnLine Mad 412] Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and Ors [2012(4) MLJ 646], This writ appeal In this case, the petitioners and their centered around a building constructed ancestors had been in exclusive by the first respondent on land possession of the lands for over 40 classified as Natham. The construction years. Pattas were granted to them in was carried out without prior approval 1992 after due enquiry and were duly from the authorities. The Commissioner recorded in the revenue registers. rejected the application for building Later, the Panchayat passed a permission, stating that Natham land resolution stating that the lands were could not be used for such purposes. needed for public use and sought to The court criticized the misuse of evict the petitioners, prompting the third Natham lands for commercial respondent to cancel the pattas. The exploitation and held that such petitioners challenged this eviction. practices must be curtailed to protect This Court held that Grama Natham public village lands. As the first lands are not vested in the Government respondent's construction was not for or in local bodies like the Panchayat. personal residential use but for Referring to several authoritative commercial purposes, the court found precedents, including Palani Ammal v. no basis to interfere with the L. Sethurama Iyengar and Rangaraja Commissioner’s rejection order. Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal, the Consequently, the writ appeal was Court reaffirmed that:
allowed, reinforcing the government’s Grama Natham lands are authority to regulate the use of Natham distinct from communal or land. government poramboke lands like roads, rivers, or burial Page 24 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government grounds.
Title to house sites in Grama Natham is protected from vesting in the Government, even under laws like the Madras Estates Abolition Act and the Land Encroachment Act.
The long-standing possession and enjoyment of such lands by individuals can lead to valid ownership, and mere classification as 'poramboke' in settlement records does not establish government title.
Eviction cannot be done summarily without proper adjudication, especially where disputed title and pattas already granted are involved.
This Court affirmed the petitioners' rights over the Grama Natham land and holding that the Town Panchayat had no authority to treat the land as its own or evict the petitioners without proper legal process.
In another unreported judgment in W.P. Unreported judgment in W.P. NO. No. 15692 of 2014, Indra Prasad vs. 18754 of 2005 Page 25 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government State of Tamil Nadu K. Elangovan vs. District Collector, Coimbatore In this case, a notice issued under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, In this case, the petitioner sought to 1905 was challenged on the ground restrain government authorities from that the property is situated in evicting him from 1.38 acres of Grama Aminjikarai Village. The Court held that Natham land, claiming over 60 years Petitioners are using the land for of continuous possession by his joint commercial purpose and they are not family. residing on the said land. Therefore, The Government admitted the land they are not entitled for the relief since was classified as natham poramboke they are not using it for a residential but alleged the petitioner had purpose. encroached on land intended for houseless poor.
The Court relied on precedents, including:
S. Rengaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal (1959) A.K. Thillaivanam v. District Collector (1998) State of Tamil Nadu v. Madasami (2012) and held that Grama Natham land does not vest with the Government, and that mere classification as 'natham poramboke' does not confer title to the State. Long-standing, undisputed possession could not be Page 26 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government treated as encroachment. The writ petition was allowed, and the Court restrained the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s possession. M.Sekar Vs. District Collector, T.S.Ravi Vs. District Collector,
Namakkal [2016 SCC OnLine Mad Tiruvallur [CDJ 2018 MHC 8248 ] 27115] The petitioners, T.S. Ravi and T.S. This case following the Zonal Officer, Sulochana, challenged notices issued Chennai Corporation vs. Narasa Reddy under the Tamil Nadu Land directed the State to protect the Encroachment Act, 1905. They Natham lands. contended that the land in question was classified as Grama Natham, for which they held valid pattas (land titles), and that part of the land had earlier been acquired by the government for a public project with compensation paid. This Court examined the A-Register, which confirmed the land as Grama Natham. Relying on precedents and legal principles, the Court ruled that:
1. Grama Natham lands do not vest in the government, hence eviction under the Land Page 27 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government Encroachment Act is not permissible.
2. Commercial use (like having small shops) does not alter the nature of Grama Natham, unless it becomes a large-scale commercial exploitation.
3. The Government can only acquire such land for public purposes through proper acquisition and compensation not by treating occupants as encroachers.
In another unreported judgment in The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 7230/2014 W.P. (MD). No.22809 of 2021 P.Balasubramaniam vs. District C.Lakshmanan vs. District Collector, Collector Kancheepuram Sivagangai [MANU/TN/0615/2022] This Court has directed the state to In this case, the petitioner challenged protect the Natham land and dismissed an order issued by the Revenue the Writ Petition and initiate the eviction Authority directing the demolition of a by following Tamil Nadu Land wall constructed on land classified as Encroachment Act, 1905. Grama Natham, allegedly without approval.
The petitioner contended that the land Page 28 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government in question belonged to a temple (Oorkavalan Maydai Kovil), had been used for religious purposes for generations, and was classified as Grama Natham. The petitioner further argued that action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was inapplicable to Grama Natham land and that due process under the Act, including the issuance of a notice under Section 7, had not been followed.
By citing several landmark judgments, including T.S. Ravi v. District Collector and A.K. Thillaivanam v.
District Collector, the Court reaffirmed the legal principle that Grama Natham land does not vest in the government, and therefore cannot be subject to eviction under the Land Encroachment Act.
In W.P.No.2855 of 2013 Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Shanmugaraj vs. District Collector, Court in W.P.No.31688 of 2022 Tiruppur A.Socretes vs. District Collector, In this case, the petitioner sought to Tiruvallur[2023(2) LW 24] restrain government authorities from constructing a government hostel on The petitioners challenged eviction Page 29 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government land claiming it as ancestral property orders issued under the Tamil Nadu and asserting long-standing Land Encroachment Act, 1905, possession. concerning land in Survey No. 595 of The government countered that the Poovirunthavalli Village, Thiruvallur land was classified in the revenue District, earmarked for the Chennai records as Natham vacant land, not Metro Rail Project. assessed or assigned to any private The petitioners argued that the land person, and was therefore vested with was classified as “Adi-Dravidar the State. They produced evidence that Natham” in the revenue records. They the land had been subdivided under the contended that such land does not vest Natham Land Development Scheme with the government and, therefore, and was being used for public cannot be reclaimed under the Land purposes, including a functioning Encroachment Act. Aathidravidar government hostel and The Court examined the classification adjoining playground. in the A-register and confirmed the land The Court reaffirmed the settled legal was indeed recorded as Adi-Dravidar position that Grama Natham lands do Natham. Referring to precedents, not automatically confer private particularly the decision in T.S. Ravi v. ownership merely on the basis of long- District Collector, Thiruvallur, the term possession or familial claims. Court held that Grama Natham land Citing the 2015 circular issued by the does not belong to the government, and Commissioner of Land Administration, the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment the Court reiterated that vacant Natham Act could not be used to evict lands must be preserved for future longstanding residents.
public use or assigned only per government policy. It emphasized that claims based on historical occupation without documentary title are not legally Page 30 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government tenable in writ proceedings and must be resolved through the appropriate civil forum.
Judgment reported in Full Bench of this The Division Bench of this Court in Hon'ble Court in Madathapu Ramaya Batch of writ petitions in vs. The Secretary of State [1903 SCC W.P.(MD).No.9466 Of 2021 OnLine Mad 56] Babu vs. District Collector, 'the lane is a portion of the "Natham" Thoothukudi or village site and presumably the free hold in the soil is in the The petitioners were residents of a Government”. It is admitted that for colony in Kalappaipatti Village, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District, centuries, from time immemorial, the living on land classified as Natham.
British Crown and its predecessors
They had constructed and were
have had title to all unoccupied
residing in their homes for a
village natham.”
considerable period. However, the
Tahsildar initiated eviction proceedings on the grounds that the petitioners could not produce title documents prior to 1966, and therefore, their occupation was deemed as encroachment.
The petitioners argued that Natham land does not vest with the government, and cited various judicial precedents establishing that possession of such land confers rights, even in the absence of formal title. Courts have consistently held that Natham lands are meant for Page 31 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government villagers and not for disposal as government property under land reform laws like the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act (1948), the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Abolition Act (1963), or the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Estates Abolition Act (1963).
The Respondent, State relied on a 2015 circular issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration, which claimed that Natham lands are government poramboke and that only patta issued under Natham Settlement could grant any rights, thus denying any ownership claim by mere possession.
The Court rejected the government's stance, declaring the 2015 circular unconstitutional, as it directly contradicted well-established legal principles. The Court reaffirmed that Natham lands do not vest in the State, and possession and enjoyment by villagers establishes a right to ownership, unless there is a competing claim between private parties.
The writ petitions were allowed, and the Court held that the government cannot evict the petitioners merely for lack of Page 32 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government pre-1966 documentation, nor can it treat such long-standing possession as encroachment.
In an Unreported judgment of this Court Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in Second Appeal No. 131 of 2003 W.P.No.25608 of 2023 Commissioner Dharapuram R.A.V Kovil Annayya Charities vs. Municipality vs. K.Marimuthu District Collector and Ors [2023 SCC OnLine Mad 8360] The second appeal was filed against the concurrent judgments of the trial The Court addressed whether land court and the appellate court, which classified as Natham can be treated as had granted a declaration of title and government property, especially when permanent injunction in favor of the the occupants use it for commercial plaintiff regarding a disputed piece of purposes. land classified as natham poramboke. In this Case, the petitioner trust claimed The plaintiff claimed possession of the ownership over land in Survey No. land for over 30 years, during which his 1382/2 in Poonamallee Village, used for family constructed a house, fenced the charitable purposes and rented shops. property, and obtained utilities. He The land was classified in revenue further claimed to have received patta records as “Natham” and “Poramboke.” (land ownership record) and to have However, without initiating land obtained the property through a family acquisition proceedings, authorities partition. He relied on adverse issued eviction notices under the Tamil possession as an alternative ground for Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, ownership. on the grounds that the land was The defendant, a municipality, argued needed for the Chennai Metro Rail that the land was public property, Project and that it was government land Page 33 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government vested in the municipality, and being used commercially.
contended that the plaintiff had
The Court quashed the eviction orders,
encroached on government land and
holding that:
had no legal right to it.
The High Court found several flaws in 1. Natham lands do not
the lower court decisions: automatically vest in the
1. The plaintiff failed to produce government, even if noted as
the alleged patta or any credible “poramboke” in the A-register or
evidence to support government revenue records.
grant. 2. Merely using Natham land for
2. The claim of adverse possession commercial purposes does not
was unsubstantiated with reliable change its character or make it
evidence. government property.
3. The suit property was admitted 3. The Tamil Nadu Land
by the plaintiff to be natham Encroachment Act cannot be
poramboke, which is government invoked against lawful occupants
land, and yet the government of Natham lands.
was not impleaded as a party to 4. If the land is required for a public the suit. purpose, the government must
4. The High Court emphasized proceed through formal that a plaintiff cannot claim title acquisition with compensation, via adverse possession in a civil not through eviction under the suit (relying on Gurdwara Sahib 1905 Act.
v. Gram Panchayat, 2014).
5. The claim that the land was Grama Natham (village habitation land not vested in government) was not supported Page 34 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government by any evidence or classification records.
Given these deficiencies, the High Court held that the plaintiff had not proven title or adverse possession, and the government should have been made a party if title by adverse possession was claimed.
Puthoor Boyanna vs. Golusu Asethu Learned Single Judge in P.Solomon and Another [AIR 1915 Madras 720] vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram[2014 SCC OnLine The Division Bench of this Court in Mad 8156] Second Appeal No.849 of 1912, dismissed the Second Appeal and held The petitioners challenged the State's that mere possession and enjoyment of failure to disburse compensation after Natham land would not confer any title. their land was acquired for the Chennai It is undisputable that the Government IT Expressway project. The land in has the right to assign vacant Natham dispute was classified in revenue poramboke lands. records as Natham. From the date of purchase, the petitioners were in possession and had constructed a dwelling on the property.
Despite this, during acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the State issued notices, invited objections, conducted an inquiry, and eventually passed an Page 35 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government award on 30.04.2013, determining compensation of Rs. 56,06,401. The petitioners participated in the proceedings, accepted the award under protest, and even submitted a formal request under Section 20(1) of the Act for reference to the civil court for enhancement of compensation.
However, the compensation was never paid. In the counter affidavit filed during the writ proceedings, the State asserted for the first time that the land was poromboke and that the petitioners were mere encroachers with no title or entitlement to compensation.
The Court decisively rejected the government’s contentions. It held that the land in question, having been classified as Natham, could not be treated as government property. The Court pointed out that the petitioners were consistently treated as owners during the entire acquisition process and that notices and the award itself acknowledged their ownership. The issuance of such notices and the passing of an award estopped the government from now contending that Page 36 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government the land was poromboke.
Secretary of State vs. Rajah Ponnia Pillai and Ors vs. Pannai Chelikani Rama Rao and Ors [1916 Minor Sivanupandiya Thevar [AIR SCC OnLine PC 42] 1947 Mad 282] The dispute was regarding ownership The case involves a dispute over of newly formed lands specifically, several plots of land classified as islands formed in the sea near the Natham, which were part of the Pannai Godavari River delta. The Government estate formerly owned by Sivanupandia of Madras proposed to declare these Thevar. After his death, the estate islands as reserved forests under the passed through his daughters and Madras Forest Act, 1882. The eventually came under the possession respondents, zemindars (landholders) of Murugiah Thevar through a family of nearby estates, opposed this move, partition in 1927. However, after claiming ownership of the islands based Madipillai Ammal (the last surviving on long-standing possession by them daughter) adopted a son, the plaintiff and their ancestors. and passed away in 1928, the adopted The Forest Settlement Officer held that son became the rightful reversionary the islands had emerged from the sea heir.
and thus originally belonged to the Murugiah continued to manage the Crown. He rejected the zemindars’ estate and collect rent through an claims, stating that they had failed to intermediate lessee, but did not prove adverse possession for the recognize the plaintiff’s rights. The statutory period of 60 years. This plaintiff, after being appointed a decision was confirmed by the District guardian, sued in 1932 to reclaim Judge. possession from several occupants.
However, the decision later reversed by The defendants argued they had
Page 37 of 68
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm )
W.A.No.1014 of 2025
Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the
Government Government
this Court stating that the zemindars acquired title by adverse possession or had shown possession for over 20 that the land belonged to the years, and therefore the burden was on government since it was registered as the Government to prove that its title Natham poromboke. had not been extinguished by limitation The court held that the plaintiff had or that its title still subsisted. established valid title through The Privy Council disagreed with the longstanding ownership and dealings High Court’s reasoning and restored by his predecessors, and that Natham the original findings of the Forest land does not automatically vest in the Officer and District Judge. It ruled that government. The defendants had lands formed in the sea or from the previously paid rent to the plaintiff’s seabed automatically vest with the family, and village officials confirmed Crown as a matter of sovereign right the land was privately held and not unless someone can prove a legal government property. The court claim, such as ownership through grant rejected the defendants' claims of or prescription. It held that mere long ownership, denied them compensation possession even over 20 years was not for improvements, and dismissed their sufficient to establish ownership against appeals, confirming the plaintiff’s right the Government. Instead, a clear case to possession. of adverse possession for at least 60 years had to be proven to defeat the Government’s title, and the burden of proving such possession lay with the claimant, not with the Crown.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A. Srinivasan vs. Tahsildar Egmore the case of Pasupuleti Krishnamurti Madras [2010 (3) MLJ 72], In this case Page 38 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government vs. Annadasu Bapanayya and Ors the key issue was whether Grama [1955 SCC OnLine AP 282], held that Natham lands vest with the only poramboke land that is not Government and whether possession required for any other communal of such land without patta could be purpose can be assigned by the treated as encroachment. The Government. Since the land is required petitioners claimed title through for a communal purpose, namely adverse possession and relied on grazing land (cattle stand), the Plaintiff earlier judicial precedents asserting that cannot seek assignment as a matter of Grama Natham is intended for the right. residential use of village inhabitants and does not automatically vest in the State.
This Court held that land classified as Grama Natham is not Government land by default. The Court reiterated that such lands are meant for village habitation and, if occupied by individuals who have put them to personal residential use, they cannot be treated as encroachers. Further, the Land Encroachment Act is not applicable to private Grama Natham lands.
W.P.No.4927 of 2018 Mummurthi vs. Perumal Gounder vs. Athappa District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, Gounder and Ors [1971 SCC Online the petitioner, K. Mummurthi, Madras 89], Second Appeal matter.
Page 39 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government challenged an eviction order issued by
the Block Development Officer. He A Second Appeal has been filed in a claimed to have been residing on the representative capacity between two land, classified as "Pattai Poramboke" individuals against another individual, for over 60 years, and argued that it concerning Oor Natham, in the light of was originally “Natham” land. He relied the case of Palani Ammal vs. on possession of official documents like L.Sethurama Iyengar, which upheld the ration card, Aadhaar, electricity collective rights of villagers over Oor connection, and payment of house tax Natham land. to assert his long-term occupation and entitlement.
The Court held that possession of identity documents or utility connections does not confer legal ownership or right to occupy government land. Since the petitioner was considered an encroacher, the plea for equity was also rejected. The Court dismissed the writ petition, validating the eviction order.
The Learned Single Judge of this Court State Vs. Madasamy [2012(2) CTC in W.P.No. 7051 of 2017 315], This second appeal dealt with the Dr.V.Kalanidhi Vs. State of ownership of land classified as Natham Tamilnadu [2023:MHC:4182], made a in Irukkankudi Melmadai Village. The detailed discussion on the genesis of plaintiffs had purchased the property Natham. It was held that Natham is from the heirs of one Saminatha Pattar, meant for residential purposes and who had long used the land for assignment can be given only for residential purposes. After their Page 40 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government residential purposes, based on the purchase, the government attempted to merit of the claimant, and no assign the land to others, claiming it commercial activity is permissible. was Government poramboke land because it was classified as Natham.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction to restrain the government from interfering. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in their favor, holding that Natham land, though originally intended for village habitation, does not automatically vest in the government. When such land is occupied, used for housing, and passed down or transferred, it becomes private property.
This Court upheld this view, citing established precedents that Natham land once used personally cannot be treated as government land. It rejected the government’s argument that lack of patta negates ownership and held that long-standing possession and use are sufficient to establish private rights. The second appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession were confirmed.
The Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.203 of 2023 S.Anbanandam Page 41 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government Vs. District Collector, Perambalur [Cited Supra] Had took great pain to trace the history of Natham with reference to RSO 21, compartmentalized the arguments, and also referred to the commentaries on land tenures in the Madras Presidency by learned author M. Sundararaja Iyengar. Notably, this is the only Division Bench case that referred to RSO 21 in the context of assignment of land, which has been occupying the field for more than a century. None of the other judgments held against the Government have discussed the context of RSO 21 in detail, instead making only passing remarks about it.
This Division Bench distinguished all the judgments factually and legally and finally held that the Government is empowered to regulate Natham land and that assignment should be based on welfare schemes in consonance with Revenue Standing Order 21.
In Second Appeal matter of Rudrappa Page 42 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Decisions in favour of the Decisions Against the Government Government Nayak vs. Dasan [AIR 1933 Mad 610], it was held that the Government's power to assign land from one public purpose to another public purpose cannot be questioned.
The Learned Single Judge of this Court in the Second Appeal Matter of Syed Abdul Jabbar vs. Executive Officer [2010 SCC Online Mad 4634], dealt with the issue of Whether the title to land classified as Natham can be derived by long possession. While this Court discussed the line of judgments including A.K. Thillaivanam and Ors.
v. The District Collector, Chengai Anna District, it distinguished the statutory vesting under Section 170 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.
Having admitted the classification of the land as Natham, mere possession would not assist the plaintiff in establishing title through adverse possession, as discussed in the Second Appeal."
42. Reading of the judgments referred in Tabular Column above would reveal that there are two sets of decisions, one set are from the year Page 43 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 1905 to 1955 and those decisions are related to civil suits between the private individuals. Pertinently, in none of those judgments, the Government is a party to the lis. However, in the case of A.K.Thillaivanam and Others vs. The District Collector Chengai Anna District4, the learned Single Judge relied on the two decisions i.e., Palani Ammal vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar5; and Rengaraja Iyengar and Another vs. Achikannu Ammal and Another6.
43. Pertinently, in the cases of Palani Ammal cited supra and Rengaraja Iyengar cited supra, the Government is not a party. Thus, the reliance of the above two judgments placed by the learned Single judge in the A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra may not have much relevance in the context of the legal principles. Palani Ammal's case cited supra was civil suit for ejectment in an inam village and thus, the said judgment has no application to the Natham land in the present context.
44. In the case of Rengaraja Iyengar cited supra, refers to a land situated in the Shrotriam Village of Kurunthampallam, which was an estate.
The Government notified the estate under Madras Act, XXVI of 1948 on 01.10.1951. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff's vendors lost title in view
4. 1997 SCC Online Mad 977
5. AIR 1949 Mad 81
6. 1959 (2) MLJ 513 Page 44 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 of Act XXVI of 1948. The finding is that immediately on coming into effect of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905, on 19.04.1905 by operation of law, the lands owned in Natham could not be brought under Act XXVI of 1948. It is relevant to extract paragraph 12 of the above judgment which reads as under:
“held that Section 3(b) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 does not have the effect of transferring to the Government, title to a house site within Natham belonging to person other than the landholder, when the estate in which the house site is situated is taken over under a notification of Act XXVI of 1948”
45. Pertinently, both cases were taken out of context and referred in A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra, which was delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The cases referred to in A.K.Thillaivanam's case speaks about buildings on a house site, whereas A.K.Thillaivanam's case, involves a vacant land of 6.22 acres. Thus, we must fall back on RSO 21, which prescribes the extent of land to be granted to landless people by Revenue authorities and hence the view taken in A.K.Thillaivanam's case by the learned Single Judge seems to be not correct.
46. Consequently, all the decisions that follow A.K.Thillaivanam's Page 45 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 case without considering RSO 21, are primarily not deciding the mode of right or ownership on Natham and hence distinguishable and, does not constitute a binding precedent.
47. Very importantly, neither in A.K.Thillaivanam's case nor in the cases of Palani Ammal and Rengaraja Iyengar, the following judgments are considered.
(a) The Division Bench in the case of Jayaram Naidu cited supra, more specifically in paragraph 5 held as follows “As explained in Collector of Godaveri District vs. Rangayya7, according to the common law of the country the control of Natham vests in the revenue authorities, and they are at liberty to grant portions of it at their discretion to persons who apply for it for building purposes; Government has the right at any time to appropriate it for any public special purpose.”
48. Also apart from the Division Bench judgments of this Court relating to gramanatham, there are two Hon'ble Full Bench judgments rendered by this Court, which has not been relied upon by any of the Division Bench or the learned Single Judges. It is essential to quote these Full Bench judgments in the context of Natham lands. It would be impossible to analyse the scope and purpose of Natham lands without
7. 1908 4 M.L.T. 440 Page 46 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 referring to the Full Bench judgments.
49. The Hon'ble Full Bench consisting of Sir S.Subramania Ayyar, Officiating Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Boddam and Mr. Justice Bhashyam Ayyangar delivered judgment in the year 1903 in the case of Madathapu Ramaya vs. The Secretary of State for India8, Bhashyam Iyengar, J., observed as follows:
“....... The lane in question is apparently a portion of the "Grama-nattam" or " village-site" and presumably the freehold in the soil is in the Government; and if, as was assumed during the argument, the lane or street had continued to vest in the District Board in 1998-when the penal assessment was imposed-then according to the decision in Sundaram Ayyar v. The Municipal Council of Madura (2), the street, qud-street, i.e., the surface and so much of the air space above and so much of the soil below the surface as is reasonably necessary to enable the District Board adequately to maintain and manage the street as a street, was vested in and belonged to the District Board. In Sundaram Ayyar v. The Municipal Council of Madura (1), the legal effect of the statutory vesting of a street in a municipality (by Act (Madras) IV of 1884 as amended by Act III of
8. (1904) 27 MAD 386 Page 47 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 1897) was considered and the conclusion arrived at; on a review of various English and some Indian decisions, was that such vesting did not transfer to the municipality the ownership in the site or soil over which the street exists. This conclusion is fortified by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Finchley Electric Light Company v.
Finchley Urban District Council (2) in which, after a review of all the English decisions, Collins, M. R., stated: "The conclusion to be derived from the authorities seems to me to be this; all the stratum of air above the surface, and all the stratum of soil below the surface which in any reasonable sense can be required for the purposes of the street as street, vest in and belong to the local authority" (at page 441).” ......................
"A street in a "Natham" between two rows of houses is not necessarily a highway and it may merely be as it generally is in rural tracts—land belonging to Government, over which however there is a right of way to the houses or buildings on either side Assuming, as found by the Courts below, that the freehold in the soil of the lane belongs to Government..."
"But whether it is a highway or merely Crown land over which there is a right of way in favour of the inhabitants of the street, it is in the Page 48 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 very nature of things land exempted from assessment; and any person encroaching thereon is a trespasser (civil) and in no sense a "landholder"..."
The custom is also unreasonable as it will equally compel a person who is in or has taken possession of his own land and is not really a trespasser—though supposed to be such by the village or other Revenue authorities—to relinquish or vacate the land rather than pay a crushing assessment, which, if paid for some years, will even exceed the full value of the land.
50. In yet another case, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court consisting of Sir John Wallis, Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ayling and Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastriyar in the case of Seshachala Chetty and four others vs. Para Chinnasami and ten others9, held as follows:
“......... The true view of the case is that gramanattam is the communal property of the villagers and that the Collector can only interfere with a view to benefit the community and when his action is consistent with the common law. To alter this state of things a special enactment would be necessary.
..................... “By immemorial usage a portion
9. 1916 SCC OnLine Mad 347 Page 49 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 of every village is assigned rent free as a site for the dwellings of the villagers; but, as the old hukumnamas show, the enjoyment of it is subject to regulation by the Government.” ...................... “In purely mirasi villages, where the entire area belongs to the mirasidars, the gramanattam no doubt appertains to them equally with the other poramboke, but these cases are exceptional.” ............... I am not satisfied that before the establishment of British rule and especially under the Muhammadan Government, unoccupied nattam was generally recognized by Government, as the private property of the mirasidars,.............” .......................
......................
............. The Government has always the paramount right of disposing of waste lands subject of course to such vested rights (either in mirasidars or communities) as may be proved to exist. .........” .....................
.......................
“To conclude I am of opinion that— (1) in mirasi villages the rights of Government over waste (including nattam and cheri) are subject to the rights of the mirasidars;
(2) the nature and extent of such rights are not Page 50 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 uniform throughout the Presidency but vary and the onus is on the mirasidars to prove that any specified incident attaches to mirasi rights in any particular district, there being no presumption that gramanattam is the exclusive property of the mirasidars;
(3) the rights of mirasidars over waste are not extinguished by the mere fact that the Government grants pattas to strangers;”
51. Thus, the majority judgments are that the Government is the owner of the house sites. Further it is held in the judgment cited supra as follows:
“These decisions it appears to me, are binding upon us, and they fully recognize the ownership of the mirasidars in all the lands in mirasi village including the waste. They recognizes also the right of the Government, in cases where the mirasidars refuse to cultivate the lands, waste or under cultivation, to let them to another for temporary cultivation. Whether in such cases the mirasidars retained his mirasi right, either to recover swatantrams is from the tenant let in by the Government or to turn him out, was question apparently not settled.” Page 51 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
52. After the Constitution of India coming into force, agrarian reforms were introduced by abolishing the mirasi system through a series of Acts, starting from Act XXVI of 1948 and including the Abolition of Intermediaries like Zamindars, Mirasi, Maniyam, etc., and conversion into Ryotwari laws, such as the Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, in short, Act XXVI of 1963. By virtue of Act XXVI of 1948 and Act XXVI of 1963, the mirasi systems were abolished. Hence, whatever rights were enjoyed by the collective body of persons (mirasidars) are now governed by the Act and appropriated by the Government as per RSO 21, as amended from time to time.
53. The Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Seshachala Chetty cited supra, held as follows:
“It seems to me that the Government on the dissolution of village communities stands for executive purposes in their place and is clothed with all the rights of management which originally vested in the mirasidars jointly. There can be little doubt that, before the dissolution of the village communities, the affairs of the village were managed by the mirasidars in common. They were responsible for the distribution of lands, and they collected certain fees or merahs from the villages Page 52 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 to meet the expenses of the village. The dissolution of the village communities naturally vested in the Government the administrative duties which were formerly exercised by the mirasidars, The right of Government to allot lands to non mirasidars and to put such persons in the position of ulkudis also gave the Government an interest in the nattam for, as a corollary to that right, the right of Government to grant sites in nattam followed. It would be against all principle to hold that, though the Government can confer waste lands on ryots, they cannot give the ryots sites in the nattam to build on. The Government has, therefore, a double right in the nattam. One is the right of superintendence over the nattam which originally vested in the mirasidars collectively and the other is to grant sites on the unoccupied portions of the nattam to ryots to whom they grant waste lands.”
54. In the case of Ponnia Pillai and others vs. Pannai Minor Sivanupandia Thevar through his brother and guarding R.K.Viswanatha Thevar10, the Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Wadsworth, Officiating Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Govindarajachari, decided the case, Speaking for the Bench, the Officiating Chief Justice
10. AIR 1947 Mad 282 Page 53 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Wadsworth held as follows:
“The argument is that all these lands were plots situated within a large number which is registered in the revenue records as Natham poramboke and it is contended on the authority of the decision in Jayarama Naidu Vs. Secretary of States for India (1929) MWN 143 that when there is a question of title to land registered as Natham poramboke, mere proof of occupation for a period of years less than 60 years would not be sufficient and it is necessary to establish either a grant from Government or occupation for a sufficient period to establish a prescriptive right against the Government.”
55. In another Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr.Justice Ayling and Mr. Justice Odgers, in the case of The Taluk Board, Dindigul vs. Venkatramier and Others11, it was held as follows:
“I do not propose to labour this point, as it is sufficient to quote from the judgment of a Bench of this court (Benson and Bhashyam lyengar, JJ) dealing with an absolutely similar case Collector of Godavari District Vs. Peddareneayya; 'according to the common law of the country, the control
11. AIR 1924 Mad 197 Page 54 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 of Natham vests with the revenue authorities and they are at liberty to grant portions of it at their discretion to persons' whocapplies for it for building purposes' Since this is a Division Bench judgment, the other second Judge Odeers J observes as follows: the question is have the Plaintiffs acquired any and what rights in the suit lands. The question falls under two heads, (i) have they acquired such rights, if at all by joint enjoyment; (ii)or by grant? The land is admittedly building site poramboke and any right acquired by long enjoyment must have been acquired against Government.' Further they have also observed that 'but it is always understood that this use is permissive on the part of the Government and that Government has the right at any time to appropriate it for any special public purpose, or grant it to an individual for building purpose"
The judgment recognized the right of Government on Natham lands.
56. In the case of Rudrappa Nayak vs. Dasan12, Mr. Justice Pakenham Walsh, held as follows:
“The registration of the land has cattle-stand in the settlement registers does not imply any
12. AIR 1933 Mad 610 Page 55 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 grant. See decisions in S.A.No.1656 of 1928 and S.A.No.692 of 1926 of this Court. In the former case, Wallace J; held that "the mere Registry of land in a village as a particular kind of poramboke creates no vested right in the villages to hold it against Government.”
57. In the same paragraph, it was further held that "the revenue officials must be left to their own judgment in such matters and their judgment cannot be questioned by Civil Court. We see the undesirable result of the Civil Court's interference in the present case. 4 M.L.T.440 which is quoted for the Appellants appears to be against them. It was there held that according to the common law of the country, the control of Natham vest in the revenue authorities and they are at liberty to grant portions of it at their discretion to persons to apply for it.”
58. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that misplaced reliance has been placed in the cases of A.K.Thillaivanam, Palani Ammal and S.Rengaraja Iyengar, since in none of these cases the Hon'ble Full Bench judgments have been referred to nor discussed. Hence, the cases of A.K.Thillaivanam, Palani Ammal and S.Rengaraja Iyengar is not a correct law. In the cases involving right over Natham lands, no concrete decision can be arrived at without referring the Page 56 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 Full Bench judgments cited supra. In essence, the Full Bench judgments are rendered by some of the most eminent Judges of this Court and cannot be bypassed in the cases dealing with Natham lands.
59. Now we have to see, whether the order of the Learned Single Judge in N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case cited supra is correct in declaring that S.Anbananthan's case cited supra as per incuriam. The Learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that in S.Anbananthan's case the following judgments have not been considered. It is factually not correct.
S.Anbananthan's case refers to the judgments as under:
1) Paragraph 70 deals with A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra:
2) In paragraph 75, A.Sacractice's case cited supra has been dealt with;
3) In paragraph 6(2), R.A.V.Kovil's case cited supra is dealt with;
4) In paragraph 73, T.S.Ravi's case cited supra has been referred;
5) In paragraph 52, Babu's case cited supra the judgment of Madurai Bench which quashed the circular dated 07.08.2015 is referred.
60. The next point for consideration is whether the decisions in Page 57 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 A.Sacractice's case, R.A.V.Kovil Annaiya Charities case and T.S.Ravi and T.S.Sulochana's case, dealt with in S.Anbananthan's case are distinguishable. These judgments have not dealt with RSO 21. This arose because the Learned Single Judge found otherwise, stating that the principles contained in the above judgments were not followed in S.Anbananthan's case. However, the above three judgments did not take into consideration RSO 21, as they dealt with compensation payable under land acquisition matters and did not decide title of Natham.
61. In all the above cases, the findings are that the land is Natham, and therefore, the Government has no right or power to regulate, and thus, the compensation has to be paid for the acquisition. Incidentally, in the above three cases, stated in the aforementioned paragraph, the subject lands were classified as “Natham” meant for house-sites to be allotted to the landless poor people in terms of RSO 21, which had been converted for commercial usage for personal gains by the occupants.
62. In the case of D.Sankar cited supra, the issue was about payment of compensation. As against this judgment Mr.D.Sankar preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in S.L.P.(Civil).No.34439-34440 of 2021 and it was dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.12.2011. Pertinently CMRL filed Page 58 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 separate SLP which was converted as Civil Appeal No.8269 of 2015 (Chennai Metro Rail Limited, represented by Managing Director Mr.D.Sankar and Others) by an order dated 27.10.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relegated the land owners to approach the Civil Court of law to establish their right. The respondents in the said civil appeal filed Civil Suit No.725 of 2018 and it was dismissed by the Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025.
63. The Division Bench in C.Indra Prasad Represented by its P.O.A.P Srinath Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Others13, has found that if the gramantham is used for commercial purpose; they are not entitled for any compensation. In paragraph 5, it is observed as follows:
“We do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions. A perusal of the impugned order would show that as per the records, the lands have been classified as circar poramboke. It is seen that the Town Survey Register shows the classification of land poramboke. Even assuming that the lands are Natham lands, they can only be used for residential purpose. Admittedly, in all these cases, the Petitioners have put up commercial building. Therefore, the authorities have rightly held that the Petitioners do not have any right
13. 2014 SCC Online Mad 2267 Page 59 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 over the properties which are subject matter of the proceedings.”
64. The judgments of the Division Bench in the cases of D.Shankar and C.Indra Prasad represented by its P.O.A.P Srinath, held that the persons in occupation of the Natham lands and using for commercial purposes are not entitled for compensation. The above two judgments are not considered in the cases of A.Sacractice's, R.A.V Kovil Annayya Charities's, and T.S.Ravi and T.S.Sulochana's cases cited supra. The learned Single Judge also has not considered those judgments while holding that S.Anbananthan's case cited supra is per incuriam. In T.S.Ravi's case, an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same had been subsequently withdrawn. In T.S.Ravi's case, patta has been given by the Revenue Authorities and at later point of time the same was revoked by the Revenue Authorities. But the difference is that in T.S.Ravi's case, RSO 21 had not been considered at all.
65. Similarly in A.R.Meenakshi and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu14, it is also a case of compensation, wherein patta has been given and there is no contradiction to the proposition stated in S.Anbananthan's case,
14. 2013 (4) LW 76 Page 60 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 except that RSO 21 was not considered in the judgment. Likewise, in another unreported judgment in W.A.No.1263 of 2024, R.Elumalai and another vs. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 04.07.2024, there is a reference to RSO 21. In this case, the Natham land was assigned, and the assignment was cancelled, since the assignees had violated the conditions. Paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is extracted below, establishes the right of the Government in Natham lands:
“6. Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the land being classified as Grama Nathan does not vest with the Govertiment and the Government not being the paramount title-holder, is not entitled to resume the grant. The said proposition of law would apply only in cases of occupied natham lands and not unoccupied natham lands, which are assigned under RSO 21. Having accepted the assignment from the Government, it is not open to the appellants to now contend that the Government is not the paramount title-holder.”
66. In another judgment in W.P.(MD). No.24407 of 2024 K.Veluisamy vs. the District Collector cum Chairperson High Level Monitoring Committee Tenkasi District dated 21.10.2024 accepts the proposition that under Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, Page 61 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 1905, all lands, which are public lands vest in the Government except that those that are owned as house sites or backyard but however, says that Government is barred in taking proceedings under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. But there is no reference about RSO 21.
67. The Learned Single Judge in N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case cited supra has classified natham as occupied and unoccupied. For occupied natham, the extent is not mentioned and the proof for occupation is not defined and so only the available source is RSO 21 and the issuance of patta by the Government are prescription to title by adverse possession.
Regarding the classification of unoccupied lands, the Learned Single Judge says that for unoccupied lands, the Government has got right. What is applicable to unoccupied land is also applicable to occupied lands. In the decision in W.A.No. 1263 of 2024 R.Elumalai and another Vs. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 04.07.2024, the Division Bench said even for the violation of the assignment conditions, the Government has got right to take action and cancel patta. So, the right of the Government has been decided in both the categories and hence the finding of the Learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the principles laid down in two Full Bench judgments and Division Bench judgments cited supra. Thus, N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case has denuded to loose its status Page 62 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 as precedent.
68. In a decision reported in Zonal Officer Chennai Corporation vs. Narasa Reddy Kances Constructions Pvt Ltd15, it has been pointed out that:
"the pathetic situation prevailing in this part of the globe, as observed is that ignoring the fact that the Natham land is a common village land, the greedy persons like the Petitioners in this case are indulging in activities which are purely commercial in nature. When the Appellants themselves have accepted in all fairness that patta has been issued erroneously and that they have initiated necessary proceedings to cancel the same, we are unable to find fault with the impugned action initiated necessary proceedings to cancel the same, we are unable to find fault with the impugned action initiated by the Appellants herein. It is rampant practice of misusing the Natham lands in this part of the globe has to be curtailed immediately, so as to protect the common village lands for the welfare of the public in general. Therefore the Government of Tamil Nadu and its revenue officials are directed to strictly protect the Natham land being misused, particularly for commercial purpose.”
15. 2012(4) MLJ 646 Page 63 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025
69. Even though this paragraph has been quoted in almost all the Division Bench judgments, the anguish expressed in these paragraphs of the judgment has not been considered at all. In the present appeal, the respondent owns land and a house, and he has encroached on another natham to an extent of 20 Cents, and comes up with a commercial building.
The finding is that it is a Natham, hence, the Government has got no role, and a patta is to be issued. If such a proposition is accepted, the anguish expressed in the above judgment will become a reality.
70. Pertinently, in the present case, the appellant/Tahsildar could establish that the 1st respondent is not entitled for patta, mainly on two grounds, i.e., firstly, he possesses 5 acres of land and a house property, wherein he constructed a pucca house and secondly, mere occupation of Natham land would confer no right of title or ownership.
71. Natham lands, meant for dwelling houses, and to be regulated by the Government in terms of RSO 21. The land is to be allotted evenly to the landless poor people based on eligibility criteria contemplated under RSO 21.
72. In the event of conferring right, title or ownership of natham lands, Page 64 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 merely based on voluntary occupation of a person or to an encroacher, then on account of sky-rocketing of land value, few powerful greedy individuals alone will illegally occupy natham lands for unjust personal gains. Natham lands are meant for dwelling purposes and to be allotted by Revenue authorities to the poor landless people in terms of RSO 21 or for public usage.
73. In the present case, the 1st respondent is not a poor landless person, but already owning lands and house. That apart, he has encroached upon natham lands by creating bogus and fraudulent documents by manipulating the revenue records with the collusion of few revenue officials and constructed commercial buildings for personal gains.
74. In view of the above discussion, the writ order impugned dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
03.06.2025
Jeni
Index : Yes / No
Page 65 of 68
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm )
W.A.No.1014 of 2025
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 66 of 68
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm )
W.A.No.1014 of 2025
To
1.The Superintendent Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Pudupattu, Kallakurichi District.
Page 67 of 68https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm ) W.A.No.1014 of 2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and K.RAJASEKAR, J.
Jeni Pre-delivery Judgment in W.A.No.1014 of 2025 03.06.2025 Page 68 of 68 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:48 pm )