Madras High Court
C.Lakshmanan vs The District Collector on 1 February, 2022
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana, P.Velmurugan
W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.(MD)No.22809 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.......... of 2021
C.Lakshmanan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Sivagangai.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai.
3. The Tashildar,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District. .. Respondents
***
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned order No.Na.Ka.E4/23480/2021, dated
11.12.2021 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and
direct the first respondent to issue patta to the oorkavalan maydai
temple belonging to Vadakudi nattar situated in Survey No.256/7 of
Pallanthur Village on the basis of Settlement Land Record (SLR).
***
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subburaj,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/9
W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021
JUDGEMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Questioning the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent and also seeking a direction to issue patta, the petitioner instituted this writ petition.
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the first respondent, while dismissing the appeal of the writ petitioner, directed them to demolish the wall that was constructed in Natham land in Survey No.256/7 of Pallanthur Village, Karaikudi taluk, without obtaining any approval.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the Oorkavalan Maydai Kovil is located in Survey No.256/7, Pallanthur Group Village, Karaikudi Taluk and the people of the village and other people from different parts of the State have been worshiping the temple for centuries. According to him, the temple is located in the land, which was classified as "Gramma Natham" and even in the Settlement Land Record (SLR), it was stated as Oorkavalan Maydai.
3.1. While so, the Karaikudi Tahsildar sent an eviction notice on 23.12.2020 for the removal of encroachment in the said survey number under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encorachment Act, 1905 (in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021 short, "the Act"). The petitioner and other devotees submitted their objection letter on 19.01.2021. Thereafter, there was no response from the authorities, which necessitated the petitioner to file WP(MD)No.14164 of 2021 before this Court seeking to quash the notice.
3.2. Since it was represented that an appeal dated 19.01.2021 was filed with the first respondent, this Court vide order dated 12.08.2021 directed the said authority to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, while directing the parties to maintain status quo.
3.3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent on 23.11.2021 and produced the records. But without considering the same, the order dated 11.12.2021, which was served on 18.12.2021, came to be passed. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government has no authority to remove encorachment on Grama Nathan land, as the same is a village land utilized for domicile purpose and it never vests with the Government and thus, the subject Act has no application and even assuming, it applies, before issuing the notice under 6, notice under Section 7 ought to have been issued, which violation vitiates the entire process, so also the impugned order. It is also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021 contended that the prayer of the petitioner to grant patta was also not considered by the first respondent in right perspective. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in T.S.Ravi and another V. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur (W.P. Nos. 26234 and 26237 of 2018).
5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader on the above submissions and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The first respondent in the impugned order itself admitted that the subject land is a Grama Natham land. This Court in a catena of decisions approved the position that the Grama Natham land is a dwelling place meant for villagers and it does not vest in the Government. The Division Bench in T.S.Ravi's case (referred supra) held as follows :
"30. We, therefore, conclude that the Government has no right to evict persons who are in occupation of lands classified as Grama Natham in the Revenue records by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, or any other enactment. It is always open to the Government to acquire the lands by paying compensation, if they are needed for any public purpose.
31. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the notices issued under Section 7 and the orders passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act, III of 1905 are quashed, leaving it open to the Government to acquire the lands in question, if the Government requires it for any public purpose. No costs."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021
7. In the said order, the Division Bench also referred extensively the earlier judgments. In paragraphs 25 and 26, the applicability of the Act was discussed in the following manner :
"25. In A.K. Thillaivanam and another v. The District Collect, Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, reported in 1998 (3) LW 603, a learned Single Judge of this Court had concluded that the land that is classified as Grama Natham, does not vest in the Government and the Government has no right to take action under the Land Encroachment Act or any other enactment to dispossess the occupants of these lands. After referring to the earlier decisions, the learned Judge observed as follows:
“27. Thus it is obvious, the admitted classification of the land being a gramanatham, the land was never vested with the respondents nor they could take action under the Land Encroachment Act or any other enactment. The petitioners state they have exclusive right, title, possession, since 1954 onwards. The respondents have no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and their action in giving a complaint for alleged offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is total misconception.”
26. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt V. Raghavan and another, reported in 2012 (1) CTC 280, another Division Bench of this Court had considered the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to the lands classified as Grama Natham.
After revisiting the Law, the Division Bench had taken note of the fact that the Government had introduced a scheme called Natham Nilavari Thittam and issued pattas to the occupants of Grama Natham lands, while doing so the Division Bench had observed as follows:
“32. Therefore, Gramanatham is not vested with the Government. Under UDR Scheme (Up Dating Revenue Record https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021 scheme) the gramanatham lands were surveyed and survey numbers have been assigned. There was an attempt by the Government to levy tax (Natham Nilavari Thittam). Therefore, under that scheme, the Natham lands were surveyed and resurvey numbers were assigned and pattas were issued. Since gramanatham is the habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside they were known as house sites. They were classified as Gramanatham to differentiate the land from Inam lands Ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands. While the lands under the other classifications vested with the Government, the gramanatham never vested with the State. However, under the UDR scheme, to enforce a tax on the Natham lands, a Thoraya Patta, for tax purporse was issued to those persons who claimed to be the land holders. The land holding is based on the title through the predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the patta issued under UDR scheme is not the patta under the Land Encroachment Act and there is no bar of the jurisdicition of the civil court under Sec.14 of the Land Encroachment Act.”
27. In view of the above decisions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the clear legal position that emerges is as under:
That the Government has no paramount title to the lands classified as Grama Natham and such lands do not vest in the Government. If that be so, the respondents herein could not have invoked the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905, to evict the petitioners. As already adverted to the Government had issued pattas to the petitioners and has also recognised the title of the petitioners by acquiring a portion of these lands by paying compensation in the year 2011. The fact that the pattas have been granted to the petitioners as well as the fact that a portion of these lands were acquired from the petitioners by paying compensation in the year 2011 is not disputed by the Government. While so, we are at a loss to understand as to how, the Government can now claim that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021 the petitioners are encroachers. The one and the only reason that is projected is that the petitioners have put these lands to commercial use. From the facts, it is seen that the petitioners have put up shops in the front portion and residential accommodation in the rear portion. This by itself would not mean that the lands have lost their character as Grama Natham lands."
8. Keeping the above legal position in mind, we are of the view that the order passed by the first respondent, which is a cryptic order bereft of any discussion delving into the claim made by the petitioner, cannot sustain in the eye of law. The claim of the writ petitioner and other devotees seeking patta was not considered in the proper perspective. Further, the violation of the provisions of the Act and the non-applicability of the Act was not discussed by the first respondent. Since the subject land is used for religious purpose and not dwelling purpose, it is incumbent on the first respondent to pass a reasoned order qua the relief sought for by the writ petitioner.
9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 11.12.2021 made in No.Na.Ka.E4/23480/2021, by the first respondent, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021
10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (P.V., J.) 01.02.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes gg To
1. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Sivagangai.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai.
3. The Tashildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8/9 W.P.(MD)No.22809/2021 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND P.VELMURUGAN, J.
gg W.P.(MD)No.22809 of 2021 01.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9/9