In the result in view of the majority Judgment, the reference:- “Whether the occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 can be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands?” is answered that: “The occupied grama natham lands do not vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 cannot be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands.” 153.  The Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals may be listed before the appropriate Courts for orders in accordance with the answer given by us in the reference.  [C.V.K.J.,]     [P.T.A.J.,]     [K.K.R.K.J.,] 06.03.2026 vsg Index:  Yes/No Internet:  Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order To 1.               The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul. 2.               The Revenue Divisional Officer Palani Tlauk, Dindigul District. 3.               The Tahsildar Vedasandur Taluk Vedasandur, Dindigul District. 4.               The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer Kujioliyamparai Panchayat Union Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. Madurai – 625 001. C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., AND P.T.ASHA, J., AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. vsg Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.Nos. 19720 of 2017, 8855, 18441, 18436, 16605, 20083, 21072, 28927, 25142, 22162 & 21323 of 2025 06.03.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on

:

08.12.2025

Pronounced On

:

06.03.2026

                 

 CORAM:

 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE  C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE  P.T.ASHA

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

W.P.(MD).Nos. 19720 of 2017, 8855, 18441, 18436, 16605, 20083, 21072, 28927, 25142, 22162 & 21323 of 2025

W.P.(MD).No. 19720 of 2017

Kaman @ Kamatchi (Died)

Nallasivam     … Petitioner

        ..Vs..

1.               The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul.

2.               The Revenue Divisional Officer

Palani Tlauk, Dindigul District.

3.               The Tahsildar

Vedasandur Taluk

Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

4.               The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer

Kujioliyamparai Panchayat Union

          Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.          … Respondents

PRAYER: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of  Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.

1088/2017/D3 dated 19.10.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

***

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).No. 19720/2017::   Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s. Ajmal Associates

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).Nos. 16605 &

20083/2025     ::    Mr.V.Raghavachari  Senior Counsel for M/s. V.Srimathi

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).No. 21072/2025::    M/s. Dakshayani Reddy   Senior Counsel  for Mr.S.Gunasekaran

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).No. 28927/2025:: Mr.Dhalapathy Vignesh    Kumar

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).No. 25142/2025::  M/s. P.Bhuvaneshwari

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).No. 8855/2025::   Mr.S.Packiya Muthu

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).No. 22162/2025::  Mr.M.Elumalai

For Petitioner in  

W.P.(MD).No. 21323/2025::  Mr.Sharath Chandran

For Petitioner in

W.P.(MD).Nos. 18441 &

         18436/2025                        ::  Mr.R.Gopinath

For RR 1 to 3 in

W.P.(MD).No. 19720/2017::   Mr.R.Ramanlal

AAG, assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar,

Additional Government Pleader

For 4th Respondent in

W.P.(MD).No. 19720/2017::  Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar

For RR 1 & 2 in

W.P.(MD).No. 16605

                                & 20083/2025     ::  Mr.Ramanlal

AAG, assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar,

Additional Government Pleader

For 3rd Respondent in

W.P.(MD).No. 16605

                                & 20083/2025     ::  M/s. S.Deepika

For RR 1 to 6 in

W.P.(MD).No. 21072/2025::   Mr.R.Ramanlal

AAG, assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar,

Additional Government Pleader

For RR 7 & 8 in

W.P.(MD).No. 21072/2025::   Mr.Avinash Wadwani  Standing Counsel

For Respondents in

W.P.(MD).Nos. 28927, 25142,

8855, 22162, 21323,

18441 & 18436/2025         ::   Mr.R.Ramanlal

AAG, assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar,

Additional Government Pleader

COMMON ORDER

 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN   , J .

Kaman @ Kamatchi had filed W.P.(MD).No. 19720 of 2017 in the nature of a certiorari seeking records relating to an order of the fourth respondent, the Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer,

Gujiliyamparai Panchayat Union, Vedasandur Taluk at Dindigul District in

Na.Ka.No.1088/2017/D3 dated 19.10.2017 and to quash the same.

2.              The said order had been passed by the fourth respondent taking recourse to the provisions under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 holding that the writ petitioner had encroached upon natham land in Vedapatti Village in Gujiliyamparai Panchayat Union and consequently issuing a direction to the Revenue Officials to evict the writ petitioner from the premise under his occupation.

3.              The Writ Petition came up for consideration before a Division

Bench comprising of the then Chief Justice [K.R.Shriram, CJ] and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice S.Srimathy, on 20.06.2025. The Division Bench expressed an opinion that conflicting Judgments have been rendered on the issue whether grama natham lands vest with the Government or do not vest with the Government.  If they vest with the Government then the authorities had the right to invoke the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 and if they do not. then, the Officials cannot invoke the provisions of the said Act. The central issue also was whether the provisions of the said Act could be invoked with respect to occupied grama natham lands. 

4.              Taking into consideration, the contradictory views on this issue,

the Division Bench had framed the following point for reference to a larger bench:-

“Whether the occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 can be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands?”

5.              Grama natham has been defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built.”

6.              In a glossary of Vernacular Judicial and Revenue Terms compiled by the Department of Revenue, Agricultural and Commerce and Public in 1871, the word ‘natham’ had been defined as “the site of the dwelling of the villagers.”  It had also been defined as “the site of the dwelling of the villagers as distinct from the lands attached to the village”.  It was also defined as “that part of the village land on which the houses of the mirasidars are built.”

7.              It is thus evident that a natham signifies a site of dwelling of the villagers and as ground set apart on which the houses of villagers may be built.  In effect, it would signify a house site in a village.

8.              The issue under reference is whether such occupied house site could be subject to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905.  The word “occupied” could signify that a house had actually been built for residential purposes and that, the house site has been occupied.  It could also signify a house site in physical occupation though a house had actually not been built.

9.              The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 came to be enacted as a result of a Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in (1904) ILR 27 Mad 386 [Madathapu Ramaya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council].  The brief facts of that case was that a demand was laid for a sum of 4 annas and one pie by the Government on the appellant for constructing a pial attached to his house upon land which was part of a public road.  The Government collected what was described as “prohibitory assessment” and directed the appellant to remove the pial and issued a notice informing him that continuous existence of the pial would ential levy of enhanced assessment.

10.           The appellant instituted a suit to recover the amount which had

been demanded and collected by the Government. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court upheld the claim of the appellant.

11.           The High Court held that the impost was not land revenue and therefore, the demand as if it was revenue was unauthorised and therefore, the appellant was entitled for a decree.

12.           Sir S.Subrahmania Ayyar, Officiating Chief Justice in his

Judgment held as follows:-

“In short the levy is no assessment at all in the proper sense of the term, but a penalty and a fine under the misnomer of land revenue and levied under such a. guise by putting in force legislative provisions absolutely inapplicable to the collection of such a demand. The truth of this view can be easily realized if the matter be tested with reference to the cardinal principle that landrevenue forms the first charge on the land. To apply this principle to cases of prohibitory assessment must lead to the manifest absurdity of one”s own land becoming charged with a debt due to himself.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

13.           Justice Boddam held as follows:-

“It is clear that the plaintiff was not a landholder within this Act. He was improperly in possession of part of the surface of the public road and the Government had no right to impose any assessment upon him under this Act for such occupation.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

14.           Justice Bhashyam Aiyangar held as follows:-

“The right of Government to assess land to land-revenue and to vary such assessment from time to time is not a right created or conferred by any statute, but, as stated in my judgment in Bell”s Case ILR 25 M. 482 is a prerogative of the Crown according to the ancient and common law of India. The prerogative right consists in this, that the Crown can by an executive act determine and fix the ” Rajabhagam” or King”s share in the produce of land and vary such share from time to time. This necessarily implies and pre-supposes that the occupant of the land has an interest in the land and is entitled to the occupant”s or ryot”s share of the produce as distinguished from the King”s share. The same idea is often expressed in the words that the Crown is entitled to the Melvaram in the land and the ryot to the Kudivaram. It therefore necessarily follows that the Crown cannot impose land-revenue upon lands in which, according to its own case, the person in occupancy has no title of interest or

Kudivaram right.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

15.           This forcible pronouncement by the Full Bench holding that the Government had no right conferred by any statute to assess land to land revenue and to vary such assessment from time to time led to the passing of the legislation / the Madras Land Encroachment Act 1905 later called the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905.

16.           Section 2 of the said Act is as follows:-

“2. Right of property in public roads, etc., waters

and lands.

(1)All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and tanks, and all back waters, canals and watercourses and all standing and flowing water, and all lands, wherever situated, save in so far as the same are the property-

(a)of any  zamindar (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948).], poligar, mittadar, shrotriemdar or [inamdaror] [Inam Estate has been abolished. See section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963).] any person claiming through or holding imder any of them, or

             (b)of any person paying shit, kattubadi, jodi, poruppu or quit-rent to any of the aforesaid persons, or

(c)of any person holding under ryotwari tenure

[including that of a janmi in the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiris district] [Substituted for the words ‘including that of a janmi in Malabar, or of a wargdar in South Kanara’ by the Madras Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957.]

[and in the transferred territory] [Inserted by section 4 of, and the Second Schedule to, the Tamil Nadu (Transferred Territory) Extension of Laws Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1960).] or in any way subject to the payment of land-revenue direct to Government, or

(d)of any other registered holder of land in proprietary right, or

(e)of any other person holding land under grant from [the Government] [The words ‘the Crown’ were substituted for the word ‘Government’ by the Adaptation Order of 1937 and the word ‘Government’ was substituted for ‘Crown’ by the Adaptation Order of 1950.] otherwise than by way of licence,

and, as to lands, save also in so far as they are temple site or owned as house-site or back yard, are and are hereby declared to be [the property of Government] [The words ‘Crown property’ were substituted for the words ‘the property of Government’ by the Adaptation Order of 1937 and the words ‘the property of

Government’ were substituted for ‘Crown property’ by the Adaptation (Amendment) Order of 1950.] except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, subject always to all rights of way and other public rights and to the natural and easement rights of other land-owners, and to all customary rights legally subsisting.

(2)All public roads and streets vested in any local authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be [the property of Government] [The words ‘Crown property’ were substituted for the words ‘the property of Government’ by the Adaptation Order of 1937 and the words ‘the property of Government’ were substituted for ‘Crown property’ by the Adaptation (Amendment) Order of 1950.].

Explanation. – In this section, “high water mark” means the highest point reached by ordinary spring-tides at any season of the year. ”

(Emphasis Supplied]

17.           A careful perusal of the said above provision when read with conjunction with the Preamble to the Act would show that the Government exercised its rights of property in public roads, etc., waters and lands, but not of house sites or back-yard. 

18.           The Preamble to the Act is as follows:-

“Preamble. – Whereas it has been the practice to check the unauthorised occupation of lands which are [the property of Government] [The words ‘Crown property’ were substituted for the words ‘the property of Government’ by the Adaptation Order of 1937 and the words ‘the property of Government’ were substituted for ‘Crown property’ by the Adaptation (Amendment) Order of 1950.] by the imposition of penal or prohibitory assessment or charge, and whereas doubts have arisen as to how far such practice is authorised by law and it is expedient to make statutory provision for checking such occupation; It is hereby enacted as follows:- ”

[Emphasis Supplied]

19.           Thus the Act is confined to unauthorised occupation of lands which are the property of the Government and under Section 2, house sites have been specifically exempted.  The words in relation to lands are save also in so far as they are owned as house site or backyard.

20.           It is thus seen that the Government can exercise its right of property over public roads, streets, lanes,  paths, bridges and also over canals and water courses except lands owned as house sites or backyards and even if the land had been declared to be the property of the Government subject always to all rights of way and public rights and to natural and easement rights of other land owners and to all customary rights legally subsisting. 

21.           Thus a restriction has been placed on the Government from taking recourse to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 with respect to lands which were occupied as house sites and back yards specifically. The lands therefore in occupation as house sites and backyards were always recognised to be the private holdings of those in occupation.  The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 had been enacted to check unauthorised occupation of lands which are the property of the Government and not of lands in occupation of individuals. 

22.           This position had been affirmed by a learned Single Judge of this

Court (E.Padmanabhan, J.) in a Judgment reported in 1998-3-L.W.603

[A.K.Thillaivanam and A.K.Dayalan Vs. the District Collector Chengai Anna District and others] wherein it had been held when there was an attempt to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their property at Athanacheri village, Sriperambudur Taluk, which had been described as grama natham in the revenue records, as follows:-

“23. Being a grama natham, it is obvious that the land in question had never vested with the Government. Section 2 of the Land Enoaclunent Act. 1905 excludes gramanatham owned as house site. As such the provisions of the Land Enchroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked by the respondents in respect of the land in question.

……

26.           Gramanatham has been defined in the

Law Lexican as follows: —

“Ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built Sec 16 M.L.T. 48”

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.

28.           Incidentally, the respondents in the counter have stated that it is a village site. Further, it is to be pointed out that even according to the respondent, it is a gramanatham and the respondents never had right nor the gramanatham had ever vested with the respondents. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled the relief of Mandamus as prayed for.”

23.  In (1949) 1 MLJ 290 = 62 L.W. 204 (Palani Ammal v. L. Sethurama Aiyangar), it had been held that grama natham is not a communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal that is property reserved for the use of the community. Satyanarayan Rao. J. held thus: —

“Grama Natham a land in the occupation of the individual in possession of the gramanatham cannot be interfered and it could very well resist ejectment and also institute a suit in ejectment against the trespasser.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

24. In S. Rengaraja Iyengar and another Achikannu Ammal and another (1959 2 MLJ 513 = 72 L.W. 767) it has been held thus: —

“It is contended that in relation to buildings, specific provision is made under Section 18 of Act XXVI of 1948 and that, consequently, unless a house site can be brought within the ambit of Section 18, such house-site should be held to be property as to which title gets transferred to the Government under Section 3(b). Section 18 deals, in my opinion, with buildings wherever they may be situate, whether in the gramanatham or in ryoti lands or pannai lands or waste lands. Section 18 has no particular application to buildings or house sites in a gramanatham. A building in a gramanatham (or Village habitation) is protected from transfer of title to the Government both under Section 18(1) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and under the Madras Land Encroachment Act (III of 1905). The title to a house site in a gramanatham is protected from transfer to Government by the operation of Madras Act III of 1905.

It is not necessary that in order that the policy underlying Madras Act XXVI of 1948 be completely given effect to, house-sites belonging to private individuals (that is persons other than the land holder) in a gramanatham, should be transferred to the Government. It is not part of the policy of the Act to transfer to the Government, land in which the proprietor had no interest at any time. Further, transfer of title of such house-sites to the Government would be virtually without payment of compensation because there would be no means of determining the part of the total compensation payable for the estate as a whole, which should be regarded as compensation paid for a few cents of house-sites in a hamlet of the village. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the Act, in relation to transfer of title as to a house site, such ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the owner, because no legislation should be held to be expropriatory in character if such an inference could possibly be avoided. I hold 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 a gramanatham belonging to a person other than the land holder when the estate in which the house, site is situate is taken over under a notification issued under the

Act.”

[Emphasis supplied]

25.      A learned Single Judge of this Court (V.Ramasubramanian, J.)

(as his Lordship then was) in a batch of Writ Petitions reported in 2013 (2) CWC 26 [  A.R.Meenakshi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others], examined the validity of notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 to the writ petitioners, on the ground that the writ petitioners were in occupation of Government poromboke lands and that the lands were required for formation of a Railway Subway Project. The Writ Petitioners claimed they were in occupation of various extents of land and had also put up superstructures and were residing in the properties for over several decades.  

26.      It was held as follows:-

“10. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to have an understanding of what a natham land means. Major Law Lexicon of P.Ramanatha Aiyar (Fourth Edition 2010 Vol.

IV) describes ‘nattum’ as follows :

‘That part of the village lands on which the houses of mirasidars are built, as distinct from the lands attached to the village; a village especially one inhabited by Sudras in opposition of an agraharam, one inhabited by brahmins.’

17. A situation identical to the one on hand arose before a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Madras vs. Kasturi Ammal [1974 (87) L.W. 531]. In that case, a land was taken possession of by a panchayat by offering to purchase it from the person in possession on the ground that the land was required for erecting water works. After taking possession, the panchayat (which later became a municipality) and the State Government refused to pay compensation for the land on the ground that the land was partly a road poramboke and partly a natham poramboke according to a survey held in 1919. Therefore, the State and the municipality contended that the land had already vested with the Government in terms of Section 2(1) of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 and also in terms of Tamilnadu Act XXX of 1963. Hence, the person, claiming to be the owner, filed a suit for declaration of title and also for compensation.

The suit was decreed on the ground that the State was estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff. The appeals filed by the State and the cross objections filed by the plaintiff for enhancement of the compensation, came up before a Division Bench of Ramaprasad Rao and Natarajan,JJ.

                         After                                     referring                                                to                                               the decision                                  of

Subrahmanyam,J in S.Rengaraja Iyengar, the Division Bench referred to a few other decisions in paragraph 14 and elicited the principle of law in paragraph 15. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the decision are extracted as follows :

’14. We may also usefully refer to some other decisions which hold that the statutory machinery provided under Act XXVI of 1948 or Act XXX of 1963 as the case may be can have jurisdiction only in respect of those matters, such as the grant of ryotwari patta, provided under the Act and that such machinery, being the creatures of the statute, cannot deal with a civil right, the determination of which can be done only by a civil Court. In State of Madras Vs. Umayal Achi and Ors. L.P.A.No. 106 of 1959., it was held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for a mere injunction restraining the Government from arbitrarily and oppressively applying the provisions of the Land Encroachments Act to persons like the plaintiff who have been in occupation of lands in a notified estate even prior to the date of the notification. In The State of Madras Vs. Parisutha Nadar (1961) 2 M.L.J.

285., it has been held that it is not open to the Government in the course of the proceedings to put forward its own title to the property sought to be acquired so as to defeat the rights of the persons entitled to the compensation. In State of Madras Vs. Ramalingasami Madani , a Bench of this Court held as follows: “It is clear from the provisions of the Act (XXVI of 1948) that what really vests in the Government in respect of a ryoti or private land is merely title and there is no vesting of possession, which is protected under the proviso to Section 3(d) of the Act. So long as the possession of the land continues to vest in the ryot, he would be entitled to protect his rights in respect of the same by resorting to civil Courts.” Though there is a long catena of decisions in this behalf, we have adverted to a few only as it is unnecessary to make reference to all of them in view of the fact that the law is now well settled that the statutory machinery created by either Act XXVI of 1948 or Act XXX of 1963 can exercise jurisdiction only in respect of those matters which are specified in the enactments and cannot pervade the field of civil litigation which is exclusively that of the civil Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader invited our attention to a Bench decision of this Court in Raja of Vizianagaram, In re Raja of Vizianagaram (AIR 1953 Mad 416), which, according to him, has a bearing on the case. A scrutiny of the judgment, however reveals that the ratio decidendi in that case has no application whatever to the controversy raised for decision in the appeal. In the above said case, the Raja of Vizianagaram contended that certain house-sites, though forming part of the estate of Vizianagaram, must be held to be sites given free to the zamindar without any additional assessment and that therefore, the vacant sites must be held to fall outside the scope of the permanent settlement. Rajamannar, C.J., and Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as he then was), if we may say so with great respect, rightly held that the contention was fallacious because what happened to the zamindar under the Sannad was not confined to the lands on which peishkush was calculated and that the fact that in 1802, no income accrued to the zamindar in the house-sites did not really affect the question. It is also significant to note that the Bench, notwithstanding such a pronouncement held, that “the right of the Government to take over the house-sites also along with the estate was however, subject to the claim of the zamindar, if any, under Section 12 and similar provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 to be granted ryotwari patta.”

15. The facts of this case which have already been expatiated by us have reference to a house-site owned by a person who is not an estate-holder and the owner of the site, apart from being entitled to the grant of a patta, is equally conferred by law a right to defend his possession and enjoyment. If, instead of her action for compensation, the plaintiff were to sue for an injunction based on her right of possession, her right to maintain the civil action can never be questioned. In like manner, when the plaintiff sues for compensation for the deprivation of the possession of her land, she is no way, worse off than when maintaining her action for retention of possession. Therefore, the second contention of the defendants to non-suit the plaintiff is a futile one and has therefore been rightly rejected by the trial Court. Consequently, the first defendant, now succeeded by the third defendant, cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the suit site, and the appeals by the second and the third defendants have, therefore, to fail.’

18.   In A.Srinivasan Vs. Tahsildar [2010 (3) MLJ 72], M.Jaichandran,J followed the earlier decisions of this Court to hold that gramanatham cannot be considered ipso facto as Government property. Therefore, the Tahsildar was held to be not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

19.   In State of Tamilnadu Vs. Madasami [2012 (2) CTC 315], V.Periya Karuppiah,J followed the decisions in A.K.Thillaivanam and S.Rengaraja Iyengar.

20.   In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt Vs. Raghavan

[2012 (1) CTC 280], a Division Bench of this Court pointed out that gramanatham is the village habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside. They are also known as house sites. They are classified as gramanatham to differentiate them from inam lands, ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands, which vest in the Government. Therefore, after quoting with approval, the decisions in S.Rengaraja Iyengar, A.K.Thillaivanam and A.Srinivasan, the Division Bench reiterated the position that gramanatham is not vested in the Government.

21.   In Muthammal Vs. State of Tamilnadu [2006 (3) LW 361], the exposition of what a poramboke land is and what a gramanatham is, as presented by Mr.T.R.Mani, learned counsel was extracted by S.Ashok Kumar,J in paragraph 8 as follows :

“Learned Senior Counsel also clarified that in Natham, first occupier will be treated as the owner and no patta will be given to them. Patta is issued only for assessed lands and it is the settled law. That is why, Natham is called as Poramboke i.e., “natham poramboke” which means “poram” is outside; “poke” is revenue record. Thus the word “poramboke lands” means the lands which is not assessed to revenue records and it is outside the revenue accounts. Likewise, “gramanatham” is defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which the house of village may be built”. Similarly, Natham land is described in Tamil

Lexicon published under the authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by the non brahmins; or land reserved as house sites; etc., Learned senior counsel also relied on very many decisions of this High Court as well as the Apex Court to the effect that Poramboke does not include natham and grama natham never vest with the Government, which will be referred to in the latter part of this judgment.”

22.   In Karana Maravar Service Society Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu & Another (Madurai Bench) [2012 (4) L.W. 92], the position was reiterated by K.B.K.Vasuki,J. Therefore, it is clear that the above position of law has held the field for over a century”.

[Emphasis Supplied]

27.           Thus the right of an individual in occupation of grama natham land had been recognised and the position of law has held the field for well over a century.

28.           The issue came up for further consideration before a Division

Bench of this Court (Sanjay Gangapurwala CJ and D.Bharatha Chakravarthy J) in a Judgment reported in (2024) 1 MLJ 21 [ R.A.V. Kovil Annayya Charities Vs. District Collector] wherein again  the right of the

Government to take recourse to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 over lands which had been classified as grama natham or natham poromboke was examined and after referring to the Judgment referred supra in A.R.Meenakshi V. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 2 CWC 26,  the

Division Bench further elaborated as follows:-

“15. Apart from the above judgments quoted, a learned Single Judge of this Court in K.Ilangovan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore and Ors. [LNIND 2011 MAD 4124] where similar eviction action was initiated in respect of Gramanatham land on the ground that it has been described as Poramboke, after considering the earlier decisions, in paragraph

Nos.6, 7, and 8 ultimately held as follows :-

” …Thus, from the above decision, it could be seen that the lands whether are classified as natham poramboke or grama natham, they are only meant to be classified as grama natham alone.

Considering all these decisions of this

Court and by considering the admitted factual position with regard to the classification of the land as grama natham, I am of the view that the respondents have got no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land which is in occupation of the petitioner.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

29.           In D.Shankar and Ors. Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration and Ors. [ (2014) 1 MLJ 818], wherein a Division Bench of this Court was again concerned with a batch of petitions, in which, the petitioners were sought to be evicted from Gramanatham lands. The Division Bench noted that the legal position is that the Gramanatham will never vest in the Government.  It was held as follows:-

” 4(iv) It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the official respondent themselves were not clear about the classification of the land for the reason that as per the Permanent Land Record, it has been shown as Government Poramboke and as per the Adangal, it has been shown as Grama Natham and in all the prior title deeds, the Old

Survey No. 178/1 has been shown as Grama Natham and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation amount. ”

30.           In another Judgement of a Division Bench the very same issue was considered in C.Lakshmanan Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai and Ors. [MANU/TN/0615/2022], and held that the Gramanatham land does not vest in the Government.

(Emphasis Supplied]

31. Useful reference can be made to “Land Law in Madras Presidency” by Mr.B.R.Chakravarthi (High Court Vakil) Madras;

P.R.Rama Iyar & Co Printers (1927 Edition), Madras, as also the book

“Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency” by Mr.S.Sundararaja Iyengar,

Advocate, High Court, Madras; the Royal Printing Works, Mount Road,

Madras (1933 Edition).”

32.           The excerpts from Chapter – II relating to Gramanatham which are relevant to the issue on hand reads as follows :-

“Nattam or gramanatham is a site on which village habitations are situated, and is held free of assessment. It is included in proamboke and is known as nattam poramboke. It is on this site that the villagers must build their houses. This does not mean that they are absolutely prevented from building their houses elsewhere, but only they will have to pas the assessment fixed on the land on which they build houses and cannot claim to hold it free of assessment. In nattam are included pilakadai or backyard of houses, a small portion of ground immediately adjoining the dwellings of villagers, and kollai or homestead. Both are held free of assessment……. The freehold in the soil of grammanattam in a ryotwari village is in government. Its right therein consists in regulating the distribution of unoccupied nattam among the intending applicants for house sites and to ensure its utilization for such purpose. The owners of houses and house sites in nattam as well as grantees of unoccupied nattam who have satisfied the condition of the grant by building houses are at liberty to dispose of them in any manner they choose…… The classification of land as nattam poramboke or government poramboke by the revenue authorities is not conclusive as to the character of the land as poramboke; nor does the omission to describe it as such prevent the government from showing that it is really poramboke; nor does the mere description in the settlement register as temple poramboke vest any title in the temple.”

33.           Thus, those who are already in inhabitation of the village Natham or Gramanatham are the absolute owners having title to dispose of the same.

34.           The Division Bench in R.A.V. Kovil Annayya Charities (referred supra) further held as follows:-

“21. It would be clear that the Gramanatham or Natham Poramboke can be classified into three types. Firstly, the Natham which are inhabited by the villagers by putting up their house or being their pilakadai or kollai etc., which is their absolute property and the Government does not have any right, title or interest in the same. The second portion of the Gramanatham or those portions which may be used for communal purposes, such as street, thrashing floors etc. Once they are used for communal purposes, by virtue of Section 2 of the Act, they become the Government interest lands and as such, have to be termed as the other types of Poramboke, in which, no individuals can claim any title and any encroachment can be removed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The third type is the unoccupied portion of the Gramanatham land, in which the right is vested with the Government to regulate its occupation. The Government has the right to assign the unoccupied portion by ensuring the condition of residence eligibility etc., and it is only in this context, the Revenue Standing Orders, enabling the Government to impose conditions, assign only 3 cents lies.

22.           In the above back ground, the Government of Tamil Nadu made an endeavour to bring clarity in respect of all the three types of

Gramanatham by framing a scheme for assessment and collection of land revenue from the owners of Gramanatham property which is known as Natham Settlement Scheme in G.O. Ms. No.869, Commercial Taxes and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 30.09.2023, under which the persons who are already in occupation were sought to be recognised by grant of ‘Thoraya Patta’ or ‘Tentative Patta’. Though a majority of the occupants of natham have approached the respondents or participated in the Natham Survey and obtained the Natham Thoraya Patta and are paying tax, it is common knowledge that it is not a complete or exhaustive exercise as many of the owners did not participate to avoid assessment and payment of tax. Thus, merely because, the concerned occupant’s name is not reflected in the Natham Adangal, prepared in this regard, the same is not a conclusive proof that it is an unoccupied Natham or a public purpose Poramboke. However, the fact that remains that all the occupants

23.           A learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of such entries in A-Register in S.Sridhar and Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. …… It is useful to extract paragraph Nos.13.3, 13.4, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 which read as follows :-

” 13.3. India has three types of properties such as (1) Agricultural; (2) Non-Agricultural; and (3) Common properties. By social practice, one can see a set of new unrecorded conventions and power structure with reference to private properties. However, private property was never documented in ancient Indian literatures. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the Indian Land Administration derives its genesis from “Land Revenue Administration” where every land record created aimed at tapping the Revenue to the Government.

13.4. The whole area of a Tamil village dating to ancient Chola period and thereafter, was divided into various classifications, one among which, as Poramboke lands. The poramboke lands are incapable of cultivation or set apart for public or communal purposes. Though there are various types of poramboke lands, in common parlance, any land that does not yield revenue, is known as poramboke land, but it is liable to tax, however the right to levy assessment on it, is given up by the Government for certain reasons. The four main classifications of waste lands under Ryotwari System that exist today, are (a) assessed (b) unassessed (c) poramboke and (d) reserved. The poramboke denotes lands set apart for public or communal purposes. They are also unassessed. The freehold in these four classes of lands is in Government. Nattam or Grama nattam is the site on which village habitations are situated and is held free of assessment. Except the nattam poramboke, which is permitted for inhabitation, all other poramboke such as lake, river, hill, grazing ground, cattle pond, forest and similar classification of poramboke of public use or common use are completely protected from any kind of people’s enjoyment.

13.7. To answer this issue, it is necessary to set out briefly the Columns found in the ‘A’ Register Extract. There cannot be any dispute that the entries in ‘A’ Register do not confer title to anybody as it is not a title document and it is only a record of those particulars which are relevant to determine the land revenue due from those lands. Each one of the 12 columns of the ‘A’ Register signifies the extent and quantum of land revenue payable by the owners of those lands to the State.

13.8. Column Nos. 1 and 2 denote the old and new survey numbers of the property; Column No. 3 indicates whether the title of the property is with the Government or with Ryotwari Patta Holder; Column No. 4 denotes whether it is a nanja (wet) or punja (dry) land on which land tax shall be payable or poramboke land on which no land tax is payable; Column No. 5 indicates whether two-time crops are taken or not; Column Nos. 6 and 7 indicate the quality and grade of the indicate the area, rate of land tax and total land tax payable with reference to the entries in Column Nos. 4 to 7; Column No. 11 indicates the name of the Ryotwari Patta Holder with reference indicates the purpose for which the land has been set apart, for the purpose of waiving land revenue with reference to the entry in Column Nos. 3 and 4, as Government lands and those lands that come under the category of poramboke in Column No. 4, are exempted from the payment of land revenue and consequently give the reason for exemption from Land Revenue.

13.9. As no land revenue is payable on poramboke lands, there will be no entries in and 11 of ‘A’ Register, whereas in the case of Ryotwari patta lands, all the columns except Column No. 12, shall have entries for the purpose of computation of appropriate land tax. ”

Thus, viewed from any angle, it can be seen that the petitioner’s predecessors in title who are the original occupants of the Gramanatham land and absolute owners and merely because they chose to deduct the property towards the charitable trust and the charitable trust has put up commercial structures for augmenting income for its purpose, it will not in any manner divest the title in the petitioners.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

35.           In the Judgment reported in 2024 (1) CWC 438 [S.Anbananthan

Vs. District Collector, Perambalur District and others], a Division Bench [S.M.Subramaniam, J and K.Rajasekar, J.] of this Court had stated a contradictory view which necessitated reference before this Full Bench the issue now under discussion.

 

36.           The facts in that case (S.Anbananthan) was that the appellant was in possession of 5 cents of gama natham land at S.No. 506/2024, / Door No. 11, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kurumbalur Village, Perambalur Taluk and had been residing there for about 40 years and submitted an application for issuance of patta which was rejected by the District Collector on the ground that the grama natham land had been reclassified as Sarkar land (vacant land).  Challenging that reclassification, the Writ Petition had been filed.  A learned Single Judge had held that reclassification cannot be interfered but possession in the grama natham land was upheld.  It was argued before the Division Bench that grama natham lands do not vest with the Government and that occupants do not hold a right over the property. 

37.           The Division Bench examined the Revenue Standing Order No.

21, relating to assessment of unoccupied grama natham lands by the Government and held that the Government had the right to regulate occupation and possession as contemplated under Revenue Standing Order No.21.  The Division  Bench referred to the earlier Judgments which have been listed above and proceeded to differ from the ratio laid therein and dismissed the Writ Appeal but granted permission to the appellant to apply for assessment of the land. 

38.           The Division Bench was of the opinion that all grama natham lands vested only with the Government irrespective of being occupied or unoccupied. 

39.           I hold that the distinction between unoccupied Government land

and occupied grama natham land had unfortunately not been examined by the Division Bench. 

40.           The Division Bench had cited the case of the Collector of

Godavari District on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Jannavula Pedda Rengayya [reported in 1903 (4) MLT 440], which was followed in the case of the Taluk Board Dindigul Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar [reported in AIR 1927 Mad. 197]. A careful

examination of the facts of the said cases would reveal that they relate to unoccupied and not occupied natham.

41.           The decision in the case of Collector of Godavari referred supra related to a land, over which, penal assessment by way of B Memo was levied which indicated that the Government had not recognized their occupation as legal at any point of time. It did not relate to occupied grama natham land.

42.           It was observed by Jackson,J as follows:

“The appellants sued the Secy. of State for a declaration that they were entitled both to a small triangle of land for which penal assessment had been levied by the defendant; and also to a shed and its site lying between this land and their house. They described the suit property as lying within the village natham. It has been found that the small triangle lies in tank poramboke and can- not be claimed by plaintiffs, and in regard to that portion the appeal is not pressed.”

43.           Reilly,J observed as follows :

“It is admitted that for centuries, from time immemorial, the British Crown and its predeces- sors have had title to all unoccupied village natham. In these circumstances the plaintiffs can- not say that they have been squatting on these plots for a day or a year or for 30 years, as in this case, and that at once throws on the Crown the burden of proving that they have not been there for 60 years and that they are not entitled to the declaration for which they pray.”

44.           The claim in Taluk Board Dindigal, referred supra was to 2.92 acres of vacant grama natham land. The villagers claimed this as their lands whereas the Government decided that it must be assigned to the Dindigul Taluk Board to build a girl’s school.

45.           The observations made in the said case related to unoccupied grama natham lands, which cannot be imported to occupied natham.

46.           The Division Bench had relied on the decision of Wadsworth,J in

the case of Chinnathambi Goundan v Venkatasubramania Ayyar [reported in AIR 1939 Mad. 409], without noticing that it was a case of unoccupied natham.   The learned Judge had stated that “the control of unoccupied village site vests in the proprietor whoever he may be.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

47.           I am constrained to point out that the Division Bench in S.Anbanathan (2024) 4 LW 431 case had unfortunately misdirected itself in appreciating the basic legal principles relating to “occupied” grama natham lands. 

48.           The learned Additional Advocate General had made a vain attempt to expand the scope of the reference to include specific instances where there has been occupation of grama natham lands. But the legal principle that occupied grama natham lands are not vested with the Government holds good.

49.           I hold that the principle laid down in S.Anbananthan (2024) 4

LW 431 and the subsequent pronouncements on the basis of the said Judgment have to be necessarily over ruled and we hold the ratio laid therein that occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government. 

50.           I therefore answer the reference that the provisions of the Land

Encroachment Act 1905 cannot be invoked in respect of occupied Government natham lands and that the occupied Government natham lands do not vest with the Government. 

 P.T.ASHA,   J .

51.           I agree with my brother Justice C.V.Karthikeyan and would like to add to this reasoning as stated by my brother the issue that is placed for reference is as follows:-

 “Whether the occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 can be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands?

52.           This issue now placed for the reference of the Full Bench is a vexed question. The occupier claims right to the same to the exclusion of the State whereas it is the case of the State that their lands vest with them.

53.           The article “Origin of Property” by Luther M. Swygert, published on 02.11.1927 in the Notre Dame Law Review – Volume 2, Issue 4 would quote from the writings of various Authors and authorities about this concept. He drew from the commentaries in the town of Dyle by Sir William

Blackstone, Professor of Law and Solicitor General to her Majesty as follows:-

“in the beginning all property and goods of the earth were the general property of mankind and that “by the law of nature and reason, he, who first began to use a certain thing, acquired therein a kind of transient property, which lasted so long as he was using it, and no longer; or to speak with greater precision, the right of possession continued for the same time only that the act of possession lasted. Thus the ground was in common and no part of it was the permanent property of any man in particular; yet, whoever was in occupation of any determined spot of it, for rest, for shade, or the like, acquired for a time a sort of ownership …. but the instance he quitted the use or occupation of it, another might seize it without injustice… But when mankind increased in number it became necessary to entertain conceptions of more permanent dominion; and to appropriate to individuals not the immediate use only but the very substance of the thing to be used”. *Thus, Blackstone enunciated the doctrine than occupancy was the first method of acquiring property and that with the beginning of civilization transient possession ripened into perpetual ownership.”

54.           Friedrich Carl Von Savigny, a German Legal Scholar and legal historian has also enunciated the same principle in his work “Das Recht des Besitzes” in the year 1803. Luther Swygert would state as follows about the theory of Savigny.

“the right to own property was based on adverse possession ripened by prescription. Or in other words, it was the strong man able to enforce respect for his possession who was finally looked upon as the owner because of his extended occupancy. Just what amount of time was needed to ripen the occupant’s possession into absolute ownership, Savigny does not tell us.”

55.           Luther also writes about village sites and the village communities of the “Hindoos” as stated by Maine. He has written the following:-

“Ancient law dealt not with Individuals but with Families or Groups of related families; and therein, Maine endeavors to point out, lies the clue to the origin of property. The village site and its outlying hunting grounds was the first kind of property known to man. As villages began to encroach upon each other’s hunting grounds, controversies arose and wars resulted; it was out of these conflicts that the law of real property came into existence. Clear evidence of this, Maine tells us, can be found in the village communities of the Hindoos, those tenacious guardians of primeval institutions. Also, villages composed of kindred folk maintaining their community property and common hunting grounds are still to be found in other less civilized parts of the world.”

56.           The early history of Property Chapter VIII published online by Cambridge University Press discussed the Roman Institutional Treaties, relating to the Modes of Acquiring Property. According to them one of the “natural modes of acquisition” is Occupatio or Occupancy. They would discuss it as follows:-

“Occupancy is the advisedly taking possession of that which at the moment is the property of no man, with the view (adds the technical definition) of acquiring property in it for yourself. The objects which the Roman Lawyers called res nullius- things which have not or have never had an owner can only be ascertained by enumerating them. Among things which never had an owner are wild animals, fishes, wild fowl, jewels disinterred for the first time, and lands newly discovered or never before cultivated. Among things which have not an owner are moveables which have been abandoned, lands which have been deserted, and (an anomalous but most formidable item) the property of an enemy. In all these objects the full rights of dominion were acquired by the Occupant, who first took possession of them with the intention of keeping them as his own an intention which, in certain cases, had to be manifested by specific acts.”

57.           Therefore, these articles clearly establish that the first right over property is through occupation. In this backdrop let us examine the issue placed for our reference.

58.           This reference emanates on account of the conflict between the decision of two Division Benches in the case of R.A.V.Kovil Annanya Charities Rep. By its Managing Trustee C.Narasimha Swamy Vs. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Tiruvallur & other 2024 (1) MLJ 11 and

S.Anbananthan Vs. District Collector, Perambalur District – 2024(1) CWC 438.

59.           The former case had its genesis in an order passed by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee holding the petitioner to be an encroach and initiating proceedings for his eviction invoking the provisions of the Land Encroaches Act. The explanation given to the Section 7 Notice was rejected on the grounds that the lands are described as Sarkar Poramboke, property is used for commercial purpose and a person cannot occupy more than 3 cents of land. The Bench in order to answer the question as to whether the land in question can be deemed to be Government interest land or not to invoke the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act has discussed the various judgments starting from Palani Ammal Vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar – AIR 1949 Mad 814 and quoting extensively from the Judgment in A.R.Meenakshi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others – 2013 (4) LW 76 and held in favour of the petitioner. The Bench turned down the argument of the State that a person can hold only 3 cents of land and that it cannot be put to commercial use to observe that merely because the occupant’s name is not reflected in the Natham Adangal will not automatically conclude that the land in question is unoccupied natham or Public Purpose Poramboke.

60.           The latter judgment in the case of S.Anbananthan Vs. District Collector, Perambalur District – 2024(1) CWC 438, the Division Bench has proceeded on the premise that lands which are not assessed are kept vacant and subsequently classified as “Grama Natham” for the purpose of house site to poor homeless people. Assignment of  these lands are done by following the procedure contemplated under Revenue Standing Order 21. The Bench proceeded to give its interpretation to each of the time-tested judgments wherein it has been held that Gramanatham lands vest with the occupier of lands and proceeded to hold that competent Authorities of the Government were empowered to regulate Grama Natham lands. They observed that the Land Encroachment Act could be pressed into service to evict unauthorized occupants of the Grama Natham lands. The Bench held that the earlier judgments have not discussed the legitimate owners of Grama Natham lands vis-a-vis the role of Government in verifying ownership to such lands. The words “set-apart” used in the definition of Grama Natham has been interpreted by the Bench to mean that the State had set it apart. It is this judgment which has prompted this reference to the Full Bench.

61.           Admittedly, the term Grama Natham existed even prior to the enactment of the Land Encroachment Act. The definition of the word

“Gramanatham” as described in the Law Lexicon and Glossary of

Vernacular Judicial and Revenue terms complied by the Department of Revenue, Agricultural and Commerce and Public in 1871 has been described by my brother C.V.Karthikeyan.  While surfing the definition through Artificial Intelligence it states that “Natham Land” or “Grama Natham” refers to village house sites or residential portion of a village set aside for building homes distinct from agricultural land, often elevated and historically unassessed for Revenue. It would further provide that Natham lands were historically set aside for residential purposes in village. The British had surveyed and classified all lands for taxation purposes and lands were categorized as wetland, dryland and barren lands. They had set aside the lands designated for residential purposes and classified them as “Poramboke” meaning “exempt from tax”.

62.           In this regard useful reference may be made to the alterations that were suggested by the Members of the Select Committee to which the Madras Land Encroachment Bill (1904) [which is the precursor for the Land Encroachment Act, 1905]. The Committee in its discussion with respect to alteration of Clause 2 has stated as follows:-

“(iii) Clause 2 has been the subject of considerable discussion and the latter portion has been redrafted so as to clear away any doubts as to the class of land to which the Bill is intended to apply as being the property of Government. Since zamindars are expressly mentioned as proprietors in the definition of landholders” in Madras Act VIII of 1865 the provisions of the Bill will not apply to communal lands in zanmindaris if such lands are the property of the zamindar. If, however, such lands are not the property of the zamindar then this Bill will apply as it obviously ought to apply to such communal lands. At present the question of the ownership of these lands remains undecided and in the absence of further legislation a judicial decision can alone define the legal position of such lands with reference to the applicability of the present Bill. The clause has been revised with special reference to existing natural rights, easements or customary rights which are now duly protected, and provision has also been made for excluding lands to which a title may have already been acquired for occupation as house-site or backyard”

63.           One of the members of the Committee,  L.A. Govindaraghava Aiyar had made the following remarks which is minuted with respect to declaration of State ownership.

He minuted as follows:

“1. To attain the object had in view in the framing of the Bill, it is not  necessary, it appears to me, that there should be a declaration of the State ownership of all properties other than those excepted in clause 2. The clause as it is worded, declares the ownership of Government of the properties specified therein not merely for the purposes of this Bill but as applicable to other cases wherein the ownership of properties such as are covered by the clause may come into question. The scope of the declaration, the consequences that may be found to flow from it in law, and its propriety as stating the exact rights of the State, have not been so fully considered as to justify the broad declaration that is embodied in the clause. The ownership of the State and waste lands in Southern India is, I think, still a moot point and wherever village communities exist, they and not the Government can be considered to be the owners of the lands set apart for communal purposes. It will require a protracted and extensive enquiry to determine whether the State is really the owner of the properties mentioned in the clause, an enquiry that will have of necessity to concern itself with the extent to which the the conception of Hindu law that the first occupier or tiller is the owner of the soil has been departed from or abrogated, if at all, by later laws or institutions. I think that properties within zamindaris may well have been omitted from the purview of the Bill especially when the question of the ownership of communal lands in zamindaris is undecided.”

64.           The Bill excluded lands owned by any person as a house site or backyard from the purview of the Bill and later the Act. The Bill itself was brought about pursuant to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Madathapu Ramayya Vs. Secretary of State reported in 1904 ILR (27) Madras 386.

65.           Therefore, from the above discussions it is clear that the History of Property and the Law before and after the enactment of the Land Encroachment Act had clearly omitted the occupied house-site and its appurtenant lands from the purview of the Act. They recognized occupation as ownership.

66.           The entire gamut of the various judicial pronouncements has been discussed in detail by my brother Justice C.V.Karthikeyan and I am in concurrence with the same.

67.           The Division Bench in the case of Anbanathan has premised its case wrongly. The Bench has presumed that lands that were vacant were later classified as Grama Natham when it was decided to provide housesites to poor homeless people. The meaning of the word Grama Natham or its reference in the Land Encroachment Act has been totally overlooked.

68.           In fine, I am in agreement that the principle laid down in S.Anbanathan 2024 (4) LW 431 and subsequent pronouncements made relying on the aforesaid judgment have to be set aside and answer the reference by stating that occupied Grama Natham does not vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act cannot be invoked with reference to “Occupied Grama Natham.”

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J,

69. I regret my inability to concur with the views expressed by the Honourable Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and the Honourable Ms. Justice P.T.Asha on whom I have a very high esteem and regard. I am constrained to record my dissent, for the reasons which I shall presently set out.

70.“The Government land is not for illegal squatters/grabbers. The

Court is not a paradise for mighty encroacher”.

71.The issues involved herein relate to the larger question of social justice, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, and the constitutional obligation of the State and the Courts to protect and safeguard Government lands. This duty assumes significance particularly in the exercise of the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in  the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2011(11) SCC 396 not only cautioned that the constitutional courts must act as guardians of public property, but also issued specific directions to the Chief Secretaries of all States to take effective steps to identify, safeguard, and restore Government lands from unlawful occupation and the relevant portion is as follows:

4. What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with their original character, for personal aggrandisement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.

23.      Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram

Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

24.      Let a copy of this order be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance with this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.

72.This Court  in the case of M.Sekar vs The District Collector,

Namakkal in W.P.No.29264 of 2016 the Hon’ble Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and the Hon’ble MR.Justie.R.MAHADEVAN (as they then were) also emphasized that natham properties, must be preserved for the benefit of the public at large and cannot be permitted to be usurped by private individuals and the relevant portion is as follows:

We have perused the counter-affidavits. We are satisfied with the stand of the respondents that necessary action has been taken and there is no large scale violation, as has been alleged. We may however note the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to by the petitioner in Zonal Officer-V, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 010 and another v. K.Narasa Reddy, Kances Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-17 and others, reported in (2012) 4 MLJ 646, where it has been observed in paragraph 17 as under:-

“17.The pathetic situation prevailing in this part of the globe, as we observed is that, ignoring the fact that Gramanatham land is a common village land, the greedy persons like the writ petitioner 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 by the appellants herein.

This rampant practice of misusing the

Gramanatham 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 Gramanatham lands from being misused, particularly for commercial purposes.”

2. The aforesaid aspect will be kept in mind by the respondent/ authorities while examining the utilization of the Gramanatham lands.

73.Apart from this authoritative pronouncement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently reiterated that constitutional courts are duty-bound to protect Government lands from encroachers, land grabbers, squatters, and all persons who assert claims without any lawful title and also strongly deprecated any attempt to recognize or legitimize illegal occupation, and has categorically held that unlawful possession, however long, cannot ripen into a lawful right in respect of public property, unless expressly sanctioned by law and cautioned constitution courts must not adopt an approach that indirectly legitimizes encroachments and emphasized the provisions of various land and encroachment laws must be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of protecting and preserving Government lands and public property cannot be allowed to be dissipated or encroached upon through judicial indirect regularization by misinterpretation of statutory provisions. In the light of these settled constitutional principles and binding precedents, and this Court is inclined to examine and answer the issues framed before this Full Bench.

74.Submissions on the side of various writ petitioners:

The learned Senior Counsel Thiru.V.Ragavachari, Thiru.TSR Venkatramana, the learned counsel, Thiru Sarath Chandran, Thiru. H.Arumugam, Thiru.J.Barathan have made a comprehensive and in depth oral submissions and also submitted detailed written submissions.

75. Per contra on the side of the State, the learned Additional

Advocate General Thiru Ramanlal with the able assistance of the learned Special Government Pleader Mr. Arun made equally comprehensive submissions by producing various Government G.Os, materials relating to the lands and also took us through the various provisions of the Tamilnadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963 and other relevant Acts and also the number of precedents with assistance of the officials. Since the issues were related to some complexities that existed pre independence and post independence period, this Court gave long rope to the parties, accommodating them by giving hearing for more than 3 days, specifically allotting the afternoon session.

76.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that once the land is classified and occupied as Natham, the same never vests with the Government, and consequently, the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, have no jurisdiction whatsoever to invoke the provisions of the Act to evict such occupants. According to the learned counsel, the occupied Natham lands stand exempted from the purview of the said Act. It is further contended that several Division Bench judgments of this Court, both prior to and post Independence, have consistently recognized and protected the possessory and occupancy rights of Natham holders.

77.However, it is submitted that the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of “Anbanandan” and “Elumalai” have taken a contrary view, without properly considering the binding precedents and settled principles governing the issue. According to the learned counsel, such deviation amounts to breach of judicial discipline. Therefore, it is urged that the view expressed in the Anbanandan case, which was followed in the subsequent judgments, be declared as not laying down the correct law. The learned counsel would submit that the Division Bench in Anbanandan failed to properly appreciate the settled legal principles and erroneously reversed the established legal position, thereby causing serious prejudice to the lawful occupants of Natham lands.

78.The learned counsel would further contend that the exemption contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act clearly excludes such occupied Natham lands, and the Government itself has expressly recognized the rights of such occupants by issuing various Government Orders, including the scheme introduced in the year 1988 for regularization of Natham lands. It is submitted that the mere noncompletion of the said regularization scheme cannot extinguish or defeat the existing rights of the occupants. Therefore, even persons who have not obtained Natham rough patta or regular patta are nevertheless entitled to assert and protect their possessory and occupancy rights.

79.It is further contended that the Full Bench judgment relied upon in “Anbanandan” and followed in “Elumalai” was neither properly interpreted nor applied in proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, there exists a patent error in the reasoning adopted in those judgments, warranting reconsideration by this Full Bench.

80.The learned counsel would also submit that the Natham Settlement Scheme, though introduced by the Government through various Government Orders and Revenue Standing Orders, has not been fully implemented even as on date. Due to some administrative lapses and inadequate procedural mechanisms, the scheme remains incomplete. In such circumstances, it is impermissible for the Government to invoke the summary provisions of the Land Encroachment Act without first establishing its title in accordance with law. Such an exercise, it is contended, would amount to indirectly achieving what cannot be done directly under law.

81.The learned counsel Mr.H.Arumugam, adopting the above submissions, would further contend that the Government has recognized the rights of Natham occupants in two distinct ways: firstly, by assigning land to eligible persons, and secondly, by recognizing long-standing possession and granting pattas. It is further submitted that the term “Natham land” is not confined merely to the built-up residential structure but also includes the appurtenant areas such as backyard (pullakkadu) and other annexed portions necessary for the enjoyment of the dwelling house. Therefore, a suitable clarification is required from this Full Bench to avoid future disputes and multiplicity of litigation.

82.The learned counsel, Thiru.J.Bharadan, would additionally submit that the Government Orders, Board Standing Orders, and Revenue Standing Orders relating to Natham lands do not have statutory force, as they do not constitute subordinate legislation framed under any statute. It is therefore submitted that Natham lands never vest with the Government, and the occupants are entitled to protection against eviction except in accordance with due process of law.

83.The learned Senior Counsel, Thiru T.S.R. Venkataramana, with the able assistance of his learned junior, also placed before this Court a detailed tabular compilation of binding precedents, highlighting the relevant paragraphs from various judgments in support of the above submissions.

84.Similarly, the learned Counsel Mr.Sharath Chandran, also made a submissions by way of detailed written argument on the law laid down by various Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

85.The Learned Counsel Thiru.N.Manoharan also filed the written submissions.

86.The learned Additional Advocate General, at the outset, submitted that a large number of encroachers are presently occupying valuable Government lands without any lawful right, under the guise of “occupied natham,” and have approached this Court by filing writ petitions seeking to legalize their illegal occupation, thereby usurping public lands of immense value. He therefore urged this Bench to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard public property and to uphold the constitutional obligation of the State to achieve social justice by ensuring that Government lands are distributed only to eligible poor and downtrodden persons, and not to encroachers who seek judicial recognition without any legal entitlement.

87.The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that, prior to the judgment rendered in “Anbanandan” and “Elumalai”, the issue was consistently settled by unanimous decisions of various Division Benches. The Division Bench in “Anbanandan” and “Elumalai”, upon a comprehensive re-examination of the statutory framework, including the relevant land  enactments, Government Orders, Revenue Standing Orders, and the object of the Tamil Nadu land laws, Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, undertook an elaborate analysis of the land laws in their constitutional perspective. The said Bench issued appropriate directions to the Government to regularize natham lands only in respect of persons who are eligible for the grant of natham patta and to protect those who had already obtained valid pattas. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the said judgment reflects a reasonable and legally sound view, and therefore does not warrant any interference. He further submitted that, under the natham Settlement Scheme, the Commissioner of Land Administration had issued a circular in the year 2011 directing the authorities not to misuse the scheme after its closure. However, the said circular was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court without a proper challenge or adjudication, and based upon the same, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed certain adverse observations and cautions, including a warning that reissuance of the said circular would amount to contempt of court. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Advocate General urged this Bench to examine the validity of the quashing of the said circular dated 2011, particularly when such quashing was done in collateral proceedings without proper adjudication, which is contrary to settled procedural and legal principles.

88.The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the expression “occupied natham” has no statutory definition or legal backing, and therefore any reference based upon such undefined terminology is misconceived and legally unsustainable. He contended that there is no Government policy recognizing any distinction between “occupied” and “unoccupied” natham  and the same is outside the statutory framework, and therefore the reference itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.

89.He further submitted that, in view of the provisions of the Inam

Abolition Acts, including the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, all lands, including both ryoti and non-ryoti lands, as well as house sites and buildings situated in natham lands within Inam villages, stood vested with the Government upon abolition. Therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act must be interpreted harmoniously with the provisions of the Inam Abolition Acts and the Revenue Standing Orders.

90.It was further contended that the specific expression “owned house site” occurring in the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act cannot be equated with mere “occupation”. The legislature, in its wisdom, consciously exempted only those house sites which were legally owned, that is, supported by valid title   against government, prior to the commencement of the Act. Mere occupation without legal authorization and without title does not confer ownership and therefore does not fall within the exemption of Act 1905.

91.The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the natham Settlement Scheme was introduced after the completion of settlement proceedings, town survey, and updating registry (UDR) proceedings, and pattas were granted strictly in accordance with law, after due verification of lawful possession and entitlement. The Government continues to issue pattas under subsequent Government Orders following the prescribed procedure. He submitted that if the present reference is answered in favour of recognizing mere occupation without legal authorization and without title , it would stall the statutory process undertaken by the Government to identify and grant pattas only to eligible poor persons.

92.He further brought to the notice of this Court that Government lands worth more than Rs.10,000 crores are presently under illegal occupation by persons claiming protection under the guise of “occupied natham,” without any lawful title. Therefore, he submitted that the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act must be allowed to initiate eviction proceedings to take possession.

93.           He also contended that the determination of whether a particular land constitutes natham and whether any person has lawful title thereto is essentially a question of fact, and has to be decided by the competent authority based upon evidence. Therefore, the present reference, which seeks to determine factual issues in the abstract, is not legally maintainable. Finally, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the contrary view expressed in Anbanandan  and Elumalai failed to consider the legal effect of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, the relevant Revenue Standing Orders, and the statutory vesting of lands in the Government. Therefore, he urged this Bench to answer the reference in favour of the State by acknowledging the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and by holding that mere occupation of natham land without lawful title does not confer any legal right.

94.           The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the earlier judgments of this Court failed to properly consider the implications of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 in relation to the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. He particularly drew attention of various provisions of  “Estate Abolition Act”, “Inams Abolition Act”, “the Minor Inams Abolition Act”, which unequivocally declare that all Estates inam and Minor Inam lands shall vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. According to him, once vesting takes place by operation of statute, no person can claim any independent right, title, or interest except in the manner recognised under the Act. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the finding rendered by the learned Judge of this Court in Krishnamurthy case, holding that the occupant had acquired right or protection over the land without adverting to the statutory vesting under Section 3 of the Inams Abolition Acts, is legally unsustainable and contrary to the statutory mandate. According to him, once vesting takes place under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, the Government acquires absolute title, and any subsequent occupation, unless regularised in accordance with law, would constitute encroachment liable to be proceeded against under the Land Encroachment Act. He further submitted that the Government has issued several Government Orders from the year 1988 onwards, whereby the classification of “natham” has been abolished in many cases and converted into ryotwari tenure. Hence, he urged this Bench to consider the statutory vesting and its legal consequences while interpreting the applicability of the Land Encroachment Act. The learned

Additional Advocate General further submitted that any interpretation of the Land Encroachment Act must be in consonance with the constitutional obligation of the State to safeguard public property. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab which  issued categorical directions to all State Governments to take effective steps to remove encroachments and protect village common lands and other Government lands. The Supreme Court further emphasised that public lands cannot be allowed to be usurped by private individuals under the guise of long possession or occupation, and directed all authorities to restore such lands to the Government. He also relied upon the judgment of the this court in the case of  M.Sekar vs. The District Collector, Namakkal, in W.P.No.29264 of 2016 wherein, the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, as His Lordship then was, reiterated the constitutional duty of the State to protect natham lands and directed the authorities to take proactive steps to safeguard Government lands from encroachment. Placing reliance on the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it cannot be declared as a universal proposition of law that occupied natham lands never vest with the Government or that such lands fall outside the purview of the Land Encroachment Act. Consequently, the very concept of “occupied natham” as an independent category conferring immunity from

Government control no longer survives in its original form. The learned Additional Advocate General also produced several Government Orders, statutory materials, and judicial precedents in support of his contention. He further distinguished the judgments of various Division Benches relied upon by the writ petitioners and submitted detailed written submissions along with supporting documents. On the strength of these statutory provisions, Government Orders, and binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he urged this Court to hold that Government lands, including natham lands vested with the Government and  are fully protected under the Land Encroachment Act, and that un-authorised occupation  cannot confer any legal right against the State.

95.           I perused the materials placed by both side and also considered the rival submissions made by both sides and the precedents relied upon by them.

96.As a matter of fact, Mr.Sharath Chandran learned Counsel, had produced three volumes of precedents in common compilation. The said three volumes mostly contained all the relevant precedents commencing from ILR 1904 (27) Madras 386 to the final judgment in Elumalai case.

97.The learned Counsel Mr.J.Bharathan also produced the above judgments and also copies G.Os., relating to the Natham settlement schemes.

98.The learned Senior counsel T.S.R.Venkatramana also produced the typed set of papers with the following contents:

(1)Case wise analysis of judgments cited in T.Elumalai Case

(2)in the case of Baleshewar Tewari (Dead) by Lrs.and others vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and others reported in AIR 1997 SC

2089

(3)in the case of Dr.Mohamed Farook vs. Murugaboopathi reported in 2020 5 CTC 161

99.The learned Additional Advocate General also produced above all the precedents.

100.To consider the issue, this Court perused the following Acts and case laws and the statues and Government Orders and Board Standing Orders:

Name of the Act

 For Brevity herein after called as “Act”

The Madras  Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802

“Regulation 1802”

Tamilnadu Encroachment Act, 1905

“Encroachment Act 1905”

The madras Esates Land Act, 1908

“ Estate land Act 1908”

The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)Act 1948

“Estate Act 1948”

The Tamil Nadu Inam Estates

(Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari) Act, 1963

“Inam Act 1963”

The Tamilnadu Minor Inam

(Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari) Act, 1963

“Minor Inam Act, 1963”

     101.Excerpts from Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency

“S.Sundaraja  Iyengar” and the Revenue Standing Order (21).

102.Following case laws:

JUDGMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE GOVERNMENT

Sl.No

Citation

Case laws

1

ILR 1904 (27) Mad 386

Madathapu Ramaya v The Secretary of State for India in Council

2

1914 SCC Online Mad 565

Putloor Boyanna v Golusu Asethu

3

1923 (18) LW 366

The Taluk Board, Dindigul v Venkatarama Ayyar(died T.E.) and others

4

1928 SCC Online Mad 311

Jayarama Naidu and others v Secretary of State

5

1933 (38) LW 83

Rudrappa Nayak v Dasan and others

6

AIR 1949 Mad 814

Palani Ammal v L.Sethurama

Aiyangar

7

2012 (4) MLJ 646

Zonal Officer – V, Corporation of

Chennai and another v K. Narasa Reddy and others

8

2014 SCC Online Mad

2267

P. Indira Prasad v State of T.N

9

Order in W.P. No. 2855 of 2013 dated; 01/11/2018

R. Shanmugaraj v The District

Collector, Tiruppurand others

10

Order in W.P. Nos. 7051

&

7052 of 2017 dated

15/09/2023

2024 (1) CWC 438

Dr. V. Kalanidhi v The State of Tamil Nadu andothers)

S. Anbanathan v District Collector,

PerambalurDistrict and others

11

2024 (3) CT 594

K. Shanmugavel Mudaliar v Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and others

12

2025 (3) CTC 753

Tahsildar, Sankarapuram v T.

Elumalai and others

13

2025 (4) CTC 60

D. Shankar v Government of Tamil Nadu and others

JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT

Sl.No.

Citations

Case laws

1

1874 SCC Online PC 6

Collector of Trichinopoly v Lekkamani

2

1905 SCC Online Mad 59

Elumalai Chettiar v Natesa Mudaliar and another

3

ILR 1917 (40) Mad 410 –

FB

Seshachala Chetty and others v Para Chinnasami and others

4

AIR 1919 Mad 412

Chinnappan Chetty v Secretary of State for India in Council

5

AIR 1939 Madras 409

Chinnathambi v Venkatasubramania

Ayyar and another)

6

AIR 1947 Madras 282

Ponnia Pillai and others v Pannar minor Sivanu Pandia Thevar)

7

1959 (2) MLJ 513

S. Rangaraja lyengar and another v Achi Kannu Ammal and another

8

1971 (1) MLJ 190

N.S. Kuppuswamy Odayar and another v

Panchayat Narthangudi and others

9

1974 (87) LW 531

State of Madras v Kasturi Ammal)

10

1998 (3) LW 603

A.K. Thillaivanam and another v The

District

Collector and others

11

2004 (3) CTC 270

The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v V.Swaminathan and others)

12

2010 (1) LW 123

A. Srinivasan v Tahsildar, Egmore

13

2012 (1) CTC 280

Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt v

Raghavan and another

GOVERNMENT ORDERS RELATING TO GRAMANATHAM

 

Sl.No

Date

G.O.Number

Purpose

1

30/10/1987

G.O.Ms.No.1177

Commercial Taxes and Hindu religious Endowment Department Land Survey, Natham, Hill, Hill

Villages, Town Survey Revenue follow

up – regular maintenance of records project

2

14/10/1988

G.O.Ms.No.1971

Revenue Department- Introducing Natham Settlement and Norms for granting Natham patta – along with clean copy

3

24/07/1997

G.O.Ms.No.693

Revenue Department – Appellate Authority – RDO vested with power to

adjudicate the disputes instead of

ASO

(Natham) – along with clean

4

05/10/1998

G.O.Ms.No.808

Revenue Department – Evaluation

Committee headed by Director of

Survey and Settlement formed Implementation of land survey and settlement in agricultural lands used for non – agricultural purpose

5

18/09/2003

G.O.Ms.No.396

Revenue Department – Addendum to

G.O.No.1971 – Inclusion of Para 7

conferring Revisional and Suo Moto

power to CLA against the orders of

DRO – along with clean copy

 

6

01/03/2007

G.O.Ms.No.103

Revenue            Department            ?

Consequential

and advisory circular to continue the

natham settlement and

reclassification – Rough patta, appeal,

revision and rectification of error except Chennai city

7

04/02/2013

Na.Ka.D1/7383/

2012

Proceedings of

Commissioner of Department of Survey and Settlement – Certain guidelines issued to deal with disputes

arising under Natham Settlement Interse private land disputes relegated

to competent civil court

8

07/08/2015

Ref.K3/14710/ 2015

Circular issued by Additional Chief

Secretary/Commissioner of

Land Administration – Further

instructions          and          detailed

instructions

were issued under G.O.MS.1971,

dated 14/11/1988 – Bonafide claims

–

category 1: occupied but wrongly recorded, category 2: unoccupied but

flow of title for 30 years i.e. (before

1966) – maybe given patta

 

9

05/02/2021

G.O.Ms.No.233

Revenue and Disaster Management Department – Powers conferred to decide Ryot withheld cases of

Natham,

Town settlement cases by RDO and

appeal to DRO, further revision to

CLA

10

19/12/2022

G.O.Ms.No.607

Revenue and Disaster Management

Department – Held over cases in

Natham Settlement Scheme/Town Settlement Schemes – Conferring powers to the officials – Delegation of

powers – Extending the validity for

2 years

11

04/05/2023

G.O.Ms.No.221

Revenue and Disaster Management Department Streamlining the different nomenclature uses by the different districts/divisions and taluks

before the computerised system of Natham land Records is brought online for the whole state (except

Chennai city)

12

12/03/2024

G.O.Ms.No.98

Revenue and Disaster Management

Department – Held over cases in

Natham Settlement Scheme/Town Settlement Schemes – Conferring powers to the officials – Delegation of

powers – Extending the validity for

2 years

13

27/08/2024

R1/7699421/ 2024

Circular issued by Commissioner of Land Administration – Lands classified

and recorded as ‘Natham Vacant

Site’

– Claims received from the public for

grant of patta for Natham Vacant Site

14

06/08/2025

G.O.Ms.No.518

Revenue and Disaster Management

Department – Order to carry out

Natham Land Revenue Project works

in 28 villages in Chennai District issuance of patta to 15000 Land owners

15

08/08/2025

G.O.Ms.No.531

Revenue and Disaster Management Department – Land tax scheme in urban areas of Corporation and Municipalities – to carry out the land

tax scheme and to issue patta in the name of the land owner

103.  Historical development in the Land Administration:

Before the Mughal period, lands were largely administered directly under the authority of the ruling sovereign, and private ownership in the modern legal sense was not fully recognized. During the reign of Sher Shah Suri around 1540–1545, a systematic land revenue administration was introduced, including the practice of granting pattas (written records) to cultivators specifying the extent of land and the revenue payable. This system recognized cultivators as holders of occupancy rights while affirming the sovereign’s ultimate title. Under the Islamic jurisprudential concept, land was considered a creation of God, and the ruler acted as a trustee, administering land for the benefit of the people; thus, absolute private ownership was not recognised.

104.During the British period, a formalized land revenue system was introduced under Lord Cornwallis through the Permanent Settlement of 1793 at Calcutta, which later influenced land revenue administration across British India. Land revenue became the principal source of income for the colonial government. Therefore, Madras permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802 was brought in and the assessment of all lands liable to pay revenue to the Government was fixed, in turn vesting the proprietary rights on the soil with the Zamindars and other owners of land. As the scheme did not work out properly, Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948  was enacted to repeal permanent settlement in respect of notified estates and to acquire the rights of lanholders in such estates and introduced the system of ryotwari settlement. Accordingly, the Act 1948 provides that with effect from the notified date, the entire estate including all communal lands, porambokes, tanks and ooranies stood transferred to the Government free of all encumbrances. It also provided that all rights and interests in the estate before the notifies date in the principal or other landholder shall cease. Power has been taken under the Act for appointment of the Director of Settlements to carry out survey and settlement operations in estates and introduce ryotwari settlement therein. The effect of that notification was to vest the entire estate with the Government free from all encumbrances. The object of the Act was to abolish the Zamindari and inam estates and to introduce ryotwari settlement. That purpose was achieved by taking over the entire estate free from all encumbrances and granting ryotwari patta to the ryot, landholders of an estate or under-tenure or the holder of a service tenure as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of Sections 14 to 17 of the Act. Thereafter, the pattadar held the land under his patta as a proprietor directly paying to the Government such assessment as may lawfully be imposed on the land. Therefore after the estate vested in the Government, the only right of the landholder was under-tenure holder or the ryot had to obtain patta.

                

105.Subsequent to the Tamilnadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion) into ryotwari Act, 1948, the Tamilnadu Government brought the Tamilnadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963,

Tamilnadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963. The vesting of the land both ryot and un-ryot was with the Government. In all the above Acts, lands were vested with the Government with similar provisions. So far as the ryot land is concerned, proper authority was constituted under the Act, to give Ryotwari settlement patta to the eligible persons and in the event of the failure to get patta, it was open to the individuals to file a civil suit for declaration of title and in the case of grievance of grant of settlement patta, it was always open to the Government to file the suit for recovery of possession.

106.In so far as the land other then the ryot land, the individuals had no right to seek Revenue patta to claim the title against the Government. The arrangement to get patta in respect of the natham land, the Government introduced the G.O.Ms.No.1177 dated 30.10.1987, G.O.Ms.No.1971 dated 14.10.1988. The said programme called as Natham Nilavari Thittam and was aimed to give the “natham rough patta” followed by issuance of Revenue Patta  to prove their title against the Government and consequential entries in the revenue documents to prove the ownership. The individuals were required to prove their title and the continuous possession of  30 years before 1960.  The Government also levied the ground rent upon issuing the said patta and subsequently, in the year 1996 the Government also withdrawn the levy of ground rent. The duly authorised authorities under the scheme had granted numerous pattas on satisfaction of their continuous possession for the period of 30 years before 1960 and title document to grant natham rough patta. But, for various reasons the said programme had been closed without completion through out the State in the year 1996. Thereafter, there was issues of said scheme even after its closure and also there were deluge of writ petition to claim the said natham patta. Hence, the Government as a policy, issued G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 5.02.2021 to dispose the long pending “Held-Over” cases. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No,221 dated 4.05.2023 for classification of lands to accurately reflect  private and Government ownership of the lands for nathamland records and the nomenclature in the natham adangal was changed as a “Ryotwari Manai”. Subsequently, The Government to give the patta by way of the assignment issued Various G.Os, dated 12.03.2024 and to implement the same, issued further G.Os, dated 06.08.2025, 08.08.2025.

107.Pending the said revamp of natham into ryot manai and issuance of ryot manai patta, the present writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.19720 of 2017 came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising the then

Honourable Chief Justice and the Honourable Ms. Justice Srimathy on 26.09.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there existed two divergent lines of judicial precedents concerning Grama Natham lands. One line of decisions held that Grama Natham lands do not vest with the Government and therefore fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The other line of decisions, however, recognised the authority of the Government to exercise control and initiate eviction proceedings, particularly where such lands were treated as communal or vested lands, or where the occupation lacked lawful origin and therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench passed the following order with questions to be settled by a larger Bench:

“Whether the occupied Grama Natham lands vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can be invoked in respect of occupied

Grama Natham lands.”

108.The questions referred to be settled by this larger bench requires to address the issue whether “occupied natham” lands vest with the Government and thereby, the provisions of the land encroachment Act, 1905 can be invoked in respect of “occupied gramanatham lands”.

109.Discussion on the issue of occupied Natham Lands vest with the Government:

To consider the issue of occupied natham vest with the Government, firstly, this Court has to look into the “legal sanctity” of a word “occupied natham”.  I never find any such word of “occupied natham”  in any of the above mentioned statues covering the land laws, encroachment Act, and Revenue Board Standing orders.  The expression “occupied Natham” is, therefore, a misnomer. Therefore, I hold that the phrase occupied natham has no legal sanctity and legal backing as there is no such word either in the “Encroachment Act, 1905”,  “Regulation 1802”, “Encroachment Act 1905”,

“ Estate land Act 1908”,  “Inam Act 1963” and  Minor Inam Act, 1963. Therefore, I find every reason to call the reference as redundant.

110.Dehors the reference as redundant, I dwell upon the issue of vesting of gramanatham with the Government. 

111. I find three serious legal infirmities in the long-standing precedents decided against the Government, relied upon by the writ petitioner. Viz.  Natham land is not a communal land; it is not vested with the Government and natham is a revenue classification. The said precedents did not undertake any detailed discussion regarding the impact of the land reform enactments, namely the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams

(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1963, and the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The statutory consequences flowing from abolition and vesting provisions were not examined in their correct perspective.

112.Firstly, the Division Bench in the case of the Executive Officer, Kadathur vs. Swaminathan reported in 2004 3 L.W. 278 without

considering the explanation to Section 17 of the Act, 1963 held in paragraph No.5 that Gramanatham are not communal property and other than the gramanatham the communal lands, porambokes, other ryotwari lands, waste lands, forest, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams tanks and irrigation work etc., vest with Government. Prior to the said decision in

Thilaivanam Case reported in 1998 (3) L.W. 603 and in Krishnamoorthy

Gounder case reported in 2002 (3) CTC 221, the learned Single Judge of this Court also held that the house sites classified as gramanatham cannot be constrained as vesting with Government. Gramanatham cannot be construed as vesting with the Government.

113.I find that there is no definition of the term “Natham” in either of the relevant statutes. However, according to various legal dictionaries, including the Tamil Lexicon, the term “village site” refers to land set apart on which houses or a village may be built, or land reserved as house sites.In this context, the basic judgment in the case of Palani Ammal vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar reported in 62 L.W.204 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that natham is not a communal land, appears to have been rendered without properly construing the definition clause contained in the then Act. For the sake of clarity, the relevant definition in the Estates Act, reads as follows:

“Threshing floors, cattle stands, village sites and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers.”

114.In the said judgment, reference was made only to threshing floors and cattle stands. However, the remaining portion of the definition, namely “village sites and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers,” was not adverted to.

Consequently, this omission appears to have resulted in an inadvertent error. The same reasoning was thereafter followed in the judgment in the Thilavanam case and subsequently in the Division Bench judgment in the Swaminathan case, and later in several other decisions. Therefore, the observation that Gramanatham is not communal property made in the 1949, follwed in Thillaivanam, the The Division Bench judgment in Executive Officer, Kadathur v. Swaminathan (2004 (3) MLJ 2178) and other subsequent judgments is not correct. The said ratio of gramanatham is not a communal lands and consequently not vested with the Government is followed by all the Division Benches and also the learned Single Judges in various cases. In my considered opinion , the said ratio of the gramanatham are not a communal lands is not correct. In view of the above, I hold that natham land, being a village site set apart for the common use of the villagers, would also fall within the category of communal land.

115.Therefore, natham either termed as natham poramboke, gramanatham is not a communal land is against the provision of the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. For

clarity, here under I have tabled and reiterated the relevant provisions:

Section 2(17) in

Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963

 

 

 

(17)”ryoti land”-(i)in relation to an existing inam estate shall have the same meaning as in clause (16) of section 3 of the Estates Land Act; and(ii)in relation to a new inam estate shall mean cultivable land in such estate other than private land, but does not include

–

(a)beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels; (b)threshing floor, .cattle-stands, village sites and other lands situated in any new inam estate which are set apart for the common use of the

villagers;

(c)lands granted on service-tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent granted before the passing of this Act so long as the service-tenure subsists;

(1)Except where the Government otherwise direct, no person admitted by a landholder into possession of any communal land or forest or other land which is not a ryoti land, shall be entitled to any rights in, or to remain in possession of, such land:Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to lands for which the landholder is entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 9.

(2)A direction under sub-section (1) allowing any person to remain in possession of any such land may specify –

(i)the assessment or ground-rent payable to the Government on the land for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the inam estate is notified, and

(ii)such special terms and conditions, including the period for which such person may remain in possession of the land as the Government may consider necessary in the public interest.

Explanation. – In this section, “communal land” means any land of the description mentioned in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of clause (16) of section 3 of the Estates Land Act and in item (a) or item (b) of sub -clause (ii) of clause (17) of section 2 of this Act.

116. As per the Section 2(17) of the Act, 1963 village sites are nonryot lands and non-ryot lands automatically vested with the Government as per Section 3 of the Act 1963, which reads as follows:

 The Entire Inam Estate (Including All Communal Lands And Poram-Bokes, Other Non-Ryoti Lands, Waste Lands, Pasture Lands, Forests, Mines And Minerals, Quarries, Rivers

And Streams [Tanks And Ooranies (Including Private Tanks And Ooranies) And Irrigation Works

In view of the above legal provisions, I hold  that natham or a gramanatham or natham poramboke is a type of communal land.

117.The earlier precedents other than “Anbanandan” and “Elumalai” proceed on the basis of the assumption that, natham or gramanatham never vest with the Government and Government has no power to invoke the Encroachment Act, 1905, against the occupier in the Natham Land is without any legal sanctity and legal backing  and also without considering following Two Full Bench of this Court, Division Bench of this Court, and the following portion of the excerpts in LAND TENURES IN THE

MADRAS PRESIDENCY -by S.Sundararaja Iyengar, the Revenue standing order (21) and  relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948), Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into RyotwariAct 1963) and Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1963).

118.

1904 27 Mad 386 F.B. 

MADATHAPU RAMAYYA VS SECRETARY OF STATE

1917 40 Mad 410 F.B.

SESHACHELA CHETTY VS CHINNASAMI

The land is a portion of the grama natham or village site and presumably the free hold in the soil is in the Government.

The general presumption of the common law of India that the ownership of all unoccupied land vests in Government.

119.The above said ratio followed by the Divisional Bench in AIR

1929 Madras 441 in Jayarama Naidu Vs Secretary of State. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that the Title to Grama natham (ie.Village sites) rests in the crown and a person who has enjoyed such site must prove in order to support his title either that he received it by grant or that he enjoyed adverse possession of it for 60 years. Hence the enjoyment of such site cannot raise a presumption that the person in enjoyment held it by immemorial right so as to throw on the crown the burden of proving the contrary and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

  “It cannot be said that any such presumption arises in the case of village site poramboke. As explained in Collector of Godaveri dist Vs Rangayya 1908 4 M.L.T.440.According to the common Law of the country the control of Gramanatham 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. Again in Madathapu Ramayya v. Secretary of State [[1904] 27 Mad. 386.] Bhashyam lyengar, J., observed on p. 393:  “The land is a portion of the "grama natham" or village site and presumably the free hold in the soil is in the Government”  In Seshachela Chetty v. Chinnasami [[1917] 40

Mad. 410 at p. 466, Ayling, J., it is held that

The general presumption of the common law of India that the ownership of all unoccupied land vests in Government”        That being so, a person who has occupied such land must prove in order to support his title either that he has received the land by grant, or that he has enjoyed adverse possession for 60 years so as to defeat the title of Government. There is no question now of adverse possession, and the plaintiffs have never pleaded, and certainly have never proved that they obtained a grant. Any presumption that can be drawn from the bare fact of 30 years occupation is rather against the plea of a grant, because within that period the revenue authorities have been fully alive to their responsibilities and any one occupying village site may be presumed either to have a document authorizing his occupation, or to have encroached. It has been argued that unless the plaintiff’s contention is upheld the Government will be at liberty to put every village householder to the proof of his title, and to eject those who have no documentary proof. As Government administer these village sites through the revenue department for the purpose of providing suitable house sites for the villagers it is inconceivable that they would attempt to turn out the present occupants merely in order to install others in their place. But in cases where a person appeared to be enjoying more than his proper allotment, it is quite conceivable that Government might take action in the interests of the villagers, as a whole; and no one but the encroacher himself would have cause to complain. The title to Gramanatham except so far as it has been lost by

Grant or adverse possession is with the crown.”

120.

LAND TENURES IN THE MADRAS PRESIDENCY

-by S.Sundararaja Iyengar

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 applicants for house sites and to ensure its utilization 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.

In a mirasi village also the presumption is that the freehold in the soil of gramanatham vests in government büt the presumption is liable to be rebutted byproof of grant, prescription or user.

121.Earlier, the precedents relied upon by the writ petitioner also not considered by implication of the RSO 21 Revenue Standing Order and for better appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder:

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

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.

122.To consider the vesting of the land, it is imperative on my part to extract the relevant section of the following Acts:

 

Section 3 of the Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1963)

Section 3 of the Inam

Estates (Abolition and

Conversion                into

RyotwariAct 1963)

Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948)

b) every minor inam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, ‘[tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works], fisheries and ferries, situated within the boundaries thereof, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances, and the Madras

City Land Revenue Act, 1851 (Central Act XII of 1851) except sections 2 and 12, the Madras City Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1867

(Madras Act VI of 1867), the

Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864), the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act, 1865

(Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865),

[the Tamil Nadu (Transferred

Territory) RyotwariSettlement Act, 1964, and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari lands] shall apply to the minor inam

c) all rights and interests created by the inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed day, shall, as against the Government, cease and determine

b) the entire inam estate (including all communal lands and porambokes, other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, Mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams [tanks and ooranies including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works] fisheries And ferries, shall stand

transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances, and the Tamil Nadu Revenue

Recovery Act, 1864 Tamil

Nadu Act II of 1864), the

Tamil Nadu Irrigation

Cess Act, 1985 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the inam estate

c) all rights and interests created in or over the inam estates before the notified date by the principal orany other landholder, shall as against the Government, cease and determine,

b) the entire estate (including all communal lands; porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; tanks lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; ‘[tanks and

ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works]; fisheries and ferries, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the [Tamil Nadu] Revenue

Recovery Act, 1864

(Tamil Nadu Act Il of

1864), the [Tamil Nadu] Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate;

c) all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any otherlandholder, shall as against the Government cease and determine

123.       From the above land laws of Tamilnadu, following four types of lands are classified:

(i)Ryoti land

(ii)Non-Ryoti land

(iii)Communal Land

(iv)Forest land

 

124.       As per the above Acts, all the above four types of lands undoubtedly vested with the Government. The definition of “ryoti land” under Tamilnadu Inam Estate ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)

Act 1963 are as follows:

Section 2(17) in Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963

(17)”ryoti land”-(i)in relation to an existing inam estate shall have the same meaning as in clause (16) of section 3 of the Estates Land Act; and(ii)in relation to a new inam estate shall mean cultivable land in such estate other than private land, but does not include –

(a)beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels;

(b)threshing floor, .cattle-stands, village sites and other lands situated in any new inam estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers;

(c)lands granted on service-tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent granted before the passing of this Act so long as the service-tenure subsists;

125. Section 17 of the Act, 1963 Inam Estates stated that no person admitted by a landholder into a possession of “communal land” or forest or “other land” which is not a ryot land shall be entitled to any right in, or to remain in possession of such land except with the Government permission. The explanation has been provided to the word communal lands including the house sites and the same reads as follows:

17. Persons admitted into possession of non-ryoti land, how dealt with.

(1)Except where the Government otherwise direct, no person admitted by a landholder into possession of any communal land or forest or other land which is not a ryoti land, shall be entitled to any rights in, or to remain in possession of, such land:Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to lands for which the landholder is entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 9.

(2)A direction under sub-section (1) allowing any person to remain in possession of any such land may specify –

(i)the assessment or ground-rent payable to the Government on the land for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the inam estate is notified, and

(ii)such special terms and conditions, including the period for which such person may remain in possession of the land as the Government may consider necessary in the public interest.

Explanation. – In this section, “communal land” means any land of the description mentioned in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of clause (16) of section 3 of the Estates Land Act and in item (a) or item (b) of sub -clause (ii) of clause (17) of section 2 of this Act.

 

126. From the reading of Section 17 and Section 2(17) it is clear that in the  house sites, poramboke lands, no persons are allowed to admit in possession without permission of the Government. The similar provision of Tamilnadu Estate Abolition Act 1948, was considered by  the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.S.Lakshmipathy vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1960 MADRAS 15 and has held as follows:

14.As the object of the Abolition Act is to convert the zamindari estate into a ryotwari tenure eliminating the middlemen, namely, the zamindars, the provisions therein should be understood in relation to that purpose. Broadly stated the effect of the statute is on notification of the estate under the Act, the entire estate including all communal lands and porombokes, other non-ryoti lands, waste land, pasture land, lanka land, forest lands etc., rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and various other rights) would stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances, and the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, and all other enactments applicable to the ryotwari areas be applicable to the erstwhile estate….

127.But, the subsequent legal precedents relied by the petitioners who support their case of natham never vest with the Government are otherwise”.

128.Therefore, as per Section 17 nobody is entitled to enter the possession without permission of the Government impliedly and

expressively tends to favour the finding that the said lands vested with the Government as per Section 3 of the Act, 1963. TheNone of the decisions relied by writ petitioners, this court had discussed about the above legal provisions of Act 1905, Act 1948, Acts 1963 which leads to the deprivation of the Government from losing his right of eviction and lawlessness in the land administration by conferring the legal right to the land grabber, encroacher and squatter of the land. On conjointing reading of the various provisions of all the Acts extracted above, I hold that Natham lands always vest with the government.

129.Secondly, beginning from the decision in Thilaivanam (1998 (3) MLJ 603) and followed by several subsequent judgments, an erroneous finding was rendered that there existed a separate classification of “Natham” lands in the A-Register and other Revenue Settlement Records

(RSR). In my considered opinion, no such independent classification exists.

The recognised classifications in the revenue records are broadly:

(i)Ryotwari (agricultural) lands,

(ii)     Non-ryotwari lands,

(iii)  Poramboke lands, etc.

There is no independent revenue classification as “Natham” or “Grama Natham.” The term “Natham” or “Grama Natham” appears only in the remarks column of the revenue records. In the classification column, the land is described as Government property, namely Poramboke. The entry in the remarks column merely indicates that the land was reserved for housesite assignment under the nomenclature of “Natham.” Therefore, there was no distinct legal or revenue classification known as “Natham land”; it was only a descriptive remark attached to Government Poramboke lands reserved for specific purposes.

130.       In number of Division benches judgments and the learned Single Judges Judgments relied by the learned counsel, I found that they had produced A register which is otherwise called RSR to prove their claim and title over the land in question against the Government Government only on the basis of description of “natham” in the “remarks column”. Only on the basis of the said reference on the basis of the remark columns as natham without any further proof of documents and evidence, this Court in  the earlier judgments treated the land as occupied natham on the reasoning that the said occupied natham never vested with the Government and jurisdiction of the authorities under the land Encroachment Act, 1905 has been ousted. I find another legal infirmity in considering the A register in the said remarks column in all the judgments.

131.       From the perusal of various land laws and the land encroachment Act, I find no circumstances to find out the word of occupied natham. Just, I find natham, grama natham etc., names in the “remarks” columns of settlement register. All the persons who claim their status as a occupied natham relied the portion of the remarks in the settlement register or the RSR. Unfortunately, there was a grave error in the process of dealing with the remarks column in the precedents relied upon by the division benches and other learned Judges. To clarify the same, it is relevant to extract the model of the said RSR register as below:

Survey Number

Sub

Division

Old

Number

and Letter, if any, or survey of the field

Government or Inam

Dry, Waste, Unsurveyed or

Poramboke

Source of Irrigation

One crop or two crop

Group

Class and sort of role

Taram

Extent

 

Assignment

Name of

Pattadar or Innamdar of the

Manager of the

Institution in which the land belongs

remarks

Acre

Cent

Rupees

Anna

Direction

Letter

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

 

 

13

14

15

132.The Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.Mahadevan (as he then was) had an occasion to consider the effect of such entries in A-Register in S.Sridhar and

Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.9. It is useful to extract paragraph

Nos.13.3, 13.4, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 which read as follows :-

” 13.3. India has three types of properties such as (1) Agricultural; (2) Non-Agricultural; and (3) Common properties. By social practice, one can see a set of new unrecorded conventions and power structure with reference to private properties. However, private property was never documented in ancient Indian literatures. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the Indian Land Administration derives its genesis from “Land Revenue Administration” where every land record created aimed at tapping the Revenue to the Government.

13.4. The whole area of a Tamil village dating to ancient Chola period and thereafter, was divided into various classifications, one among which, as Poramboke lands. The poramboke lands are incapable of cultivation or set apart for public or communal purposes. Though there are various types of poramboke lands, in common parlance, any land that does not yield revenue, is known as poramboke land, but it is liable to tax, however the right to levy assessment on it, is given up by the Government for certain reasons. The four main classifications of waste lands under Ryotwari System that exist today, are (a) assessed (b) unassessed (c) poramboke and (d) reserved. The poramboke denotes lands set apart for public or communal purposes. They are also unassessed. The freehold in these four classes of lands is in Government. natham or Grama natham is the site on which village habitations are situated and is held free of assessment. Except the natham poramboke, which is permitted for inhabitation, all other poramboke such as lake, river, hill, grazing ground, cattle pond, forest and similar classification of poramboke of public use or common use are completely protected from any kind of people’s enjoyment.

13.7. To answer this issue, it is necessary to set out briefly the Columns found in the ‘A’ Register Extract. There cannot be any dispute that the entries in ‘A’ Register do not confer title to anybody as it is not a title document and it is only a record of those particulars which are relevant to determine the land revenue due from those lands. Each one of the 12 columns of the ‘A’ Register signifies the extent and quantum of land revenue payable by the owners of those lands to the State.

13.8. Column Nos. 1 and 2 denote the old and new survey numbers of the property; Column No. 3 indicates whether the title of the property is with the Government or with Ryotwari Patta Holder; Column No. 4 denotes whether it is a nanja (wet) or punja (dry) land on which land tax shall be payable or poramboke land on which no land tax is payable; Column No. 5 indicates whether two-time crops are taken or not; Column Nos. 6 and 7 indicate the quality and grade of the earth of the land; Column Nos. 8, 9 and 10 indicate the area, rate of land tax and total land tax payable with reference to the entries in Column Nos. 4 to 7; Column No. 11 indicates the name of the Ryotwari

Patta Holder with reference to the entry in Column No. 3; Column No. 12 indicates the purpose for which the land has been set apart, for the purpose of waiving land revenue with reference to the entry in Column Nos. 3 and 4, as Government lands and those lands that come under the category of poramboke in Column No. 4, are exempted from the payment of land revenue and consequently give the reason for exemption from Land Revenue.

 13.9. As no land revenue is payable on poramboke lands, there will be no entries in respect of those lands in Column Nos. 5 to 8, 10 and 11 of ‘A’ Register, whereas in the case of Ryotwari patta lands, all the columns except Column No. 12, shall have entries for the purpose of computation of appropriate land tax. ”

133.Therefore, each column has own significance. Column number 4 and 5 is  important columns to denote the ownership of the landholders. If it is inam or private land, the remarks column referred individual land owners name. In the case of Government Poramboke land the remarks column referred with the purpose for which Government reserved for that. Title column Government was described as a “Government poramboke” and the current usage is as “natham”. Therefore, merely on the basis of the natham reference in the remarks column it cannot confer any right over any person without legal authorisation of the Government to occupy the land. Unfortunately, for the past number of years the same was not properly considered by the Hon’ble Judges of this Court and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The Government also issued the following circular dated 08.11.2021 to clarify the said confusion, which reads as follows:

Revenue and Disaster

Management Department, Land Disposal Wing, LD5(2) Section, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

CIRCULAR No.12, Dated 8.11.2021 Sub: Land-Government Land – Instructions issued – Regarding.

Ref: Connected records.

—–

As per RSO, all poramboke lands are vested with Government. Ownership of the land also with the Government and it is having the right to assign/alienate/transfer/lease/ exchange/ right to usage etc for any/ public purpose.

2.                   In some cases, it is noted that although it is a Government land, the land usage is noted in the remarks column and it is wrongly considered that the usage party as the ownership of the land and having right over the land.

3.                   It is clarified that for all poramboke lands, ownership is vested only with the Government and if any notification is within the remarks column indicates the current usage, it just indicates the current usage without any ownership over the parcel of the land, and such users have no default right to claim over the ownership of such Government lands. All District Collectors are instructed to follow the instruction scrupulously to protect the valuable Government lands.

Kumar Jayant

Principal Secretary to Government

To

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. All District Collectors.

134.All the Courts, were only on looking the remarks column described as natham and simply treated the claiming without legal authorisation from the Government, erroneously held that natham land is not vested with the Government. In my considered opinion, the said approach   only shows inadvertency  without proper appreciation of the RSR columns number 4 and 5 and remarks column. If the title column denotes the Government poramboke, the Government is owner of the property. The same was further strengthened from Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor and

Inam abolition Act, which reads as follows:

3. Vesting of minor inams, etc., in Government.

(b)every minor inam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams [tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works], fisheries and ferries, situated within the boundaries thereof, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances, and  shall apply to the minor inam; (c)all rights and interests created by the inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed day, shall, as against the Government, cease and determine;

135.In my considered view, ousting of  jurisdiction of the Government to invoke the land encroachment Act, only on the basis of the mentioning of the natham, gramanatham in the remarks column of the copy of A register, without properly understanding the column Nos.4 and 5 of the A register in consonance with Section 2(17), 3 and 17 of the Act, 1963 is not correct one. At the cost of the repetition, Section 17 prohibits the entry of possession in the non ryot land without permission of the Government and Section 3, the non ryot land including poramboke vested with the Government and harmonious construction of the above said provisions, show that natham land also vest with the Government.

136.It is pertinent to note that the constitutional validity of the entire said Act, was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similar provisions are there in Tamilnadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act

1948, Tamilnadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 and the same were held valid. Therefore, from the reading of the above provision and the Act, the non ryot land, porambokes shall stand transferred to the Government and vested with them free from all encumbrances. Therefore, all the non ryot land porambokes including house site which according to the precedents relied by the writ petitioners amounts to “natham” automatically vest with the Government and also all rights and interest before the commencement would also cease as against the Government. Only exemption is for the land holders who primafacie establish entitlement to get ryotwari patta and the same was evident from the following Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.Muniappan and others vs. The Tahsildar and others reported in AIR 2014 MAD 215 and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

44.(iii) Eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can be initiated and completed with regard to the land belonging to the Government and not in respondent of patta lands.

eviction under the provision of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can be initiated in all circumstances with regard to the land belonging to the Government except in the case of patta lands supported with the title documents. In this aspect, there was a wrong appreciation of the provisions of Section 18, 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 in the Division Bench judgment reported in 2004 3 CTC 270 (“V.Swaminathan case”). Unfortunately the same was followed by the subsequent division Benches and other Judges.  The  Division Benches judgment including 2024 3 CTC 337 (RAV.Kovil Annayya Charities) and

2024 (1) CWC 352 (A Sacraties never considered the provisions of the

Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948,

Tamil Nadu Estates Inam (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act,

1963 and Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and also effect of the said provisions before giving finding that the natham never vested with  the Government.

137.At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu vs. kamakshia Pillai reported in 72 L.W. 770 where it is held that the Government has power to invoke the Act, 1905 by holding that under the Act, 48, the entire estates vest with the Government including all the lands and relevant portion is as follows:

11. That the entire estate vests is made clear by Section 3(b) of Act XXVI of 1948, and the scope of Section 3(b) has been examined in the following decisions : State of Madras and Anr. v. V. Srinivasa Ayyangar , Zamindar of Ettayapuram v. State of Madras (1955) 1 M.L.J. 264 Chidambaram Chettiar v. Md.

Aliar Rowther (1957) 1 M.L.J. 244 Appanna v. Sri Ramamurthi

(1953) 1 An.W.R. 420, State of Madras v. Karuppiah Ambalam (1959) 1 M.L.J. 185, and Sovsai Udayar v. Andiyappan (1959) 1 M.L.J. 195. (See also C.M.P. No. 5156 of 1951; S.A. No. 620 of 1957). This entire estate would certainly comprise the tank and the right to fish which is always held to be immovable property. In addition, Section 3(g) of Act XXVI of 1948 makes it clear that any rights and privileges which may have accrued in an estate, to any person before the notified date, against the principal or any other landholder thereof, shall cease and determine, and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such landholders and every such person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him by or under this Act; vide Saraswathi Bai v. Chairman, E.A.T. Madurai (1956) 1 M.L.J. 200, and State of Madras v.

Karuppiah Ambalam (1959) 1 M.L.J. 185.

12. The net result of this analysis is that when a land which was an estate and to which the provisions relating to lands permanently settled have ceased to apply and have become ryotwari and to which all enactments applicable to ryotwari lands shall apply – there can be no interregnum as absolute Government property as postulated by Mr. G.R. Jagadisan as the former ceasing and the latter application are simultaneous – the aggrieved plaintiffs should resort to the same remedies as are open to the ryotwari ryots, viz., proceed under the provisions of the Board’s Standing Orders, and petition the revenue authorities.

20. Under Act (III of 1905), viz., the Madras Land Encroachment Act, all lands wherever situated except the property of zamindar, pattadar, jenmi etc. are declared to be Government property as on 6th June, 1905, except as may be otherwise provided by any law, subject always to all rights of way and other public rights, easements, etc. of other landowners and to all customary rights legally subsisting. The Madras Land Encroachment Act was a declaratory act and the effect of that legislation was to the effect that what was not any other man’s property become the property of the Government as on the date of the legislation coming into force, barring certain rights specified in the said declaratory provision which attach themselves to the land declared to belong to the Government. It is clear that it was not the zamindari estate or the estate of the poligar, or the pattadar or any jenmi that was declared to be the Government property under the Madras Land Encroachment Act. But on the other hand, this category of properties formed the category of excepted properties as could be seen from the language of Section 2(1) of the Madras Land Encroachment Act. The Madras Land Encroachment Act, being a declaratory measure, had already exhausted itself in its scope and application as to the character of the lands when once the declaration was made and all lands barring the excepted lands had become vested in the Government. The vesting by declaration took place in favour of the Government under the said Section 2(1) of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, and only thereafter the situation would arise as to whether any lands so vested in the Government could be lost to the Government by reason of other people claiming rights thereto, which might have accrued in their favour by operation of any law. That is to say, the operation of the Madras Land Encroachment Act or its application in other words, would arise only after the land has been, declared to have become vested in the Government and not to any state of things prior thereto. In the present case, the estate in question becomes vested in the Government only on and after the date of notification under the Estates Abolition Act. Therefore, the Madras Land Encroachment Act could be made applicable to this estate only on and after the notification takes effect and not to any state of things existing at any prior point of time. That is the effect of the latter part of Section 3(b). Such being the case, the claim of the respondents that under the Madras Land Encroachment Act their rights to any easements or privileges that existed before the abolition are left in tact and without being affected by the Estates Abolition Act seems to be rather unintelligible. When the operation of the Madras Land Encroachment Act could itself arise only after the date of the notification, to say that by reason of Section 2(1) of the Madras Land Encroachment Act the rights, which the respondents had in the matter of fishery in the poramboke tank are reserved to them and that these rights should be accepted and acknowledged by the Government, when the Abolition Act is implemented and worked out, seems to be a very difficult position to understand. No authority has been cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents to support the proposition that retrospective application of any section of the Land Encroachment Act is permissible when the land comprised in the estate itself becomes vested in the Government by reason of a notification under a later Act and only on and from the date of the notification under the said Act, viz., the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. In Madathapu Ramayya v. The Secretary of State for India (1903) 14 M.L.J. 37 : I.L.R. 27 Mad. 386 (F.B.), and Secretary of State for India v. Maharajah of Bobili (1915) 30 M.L.J. 163, it was held that the Madras Land Encroachment Act got itself exhausted on the day when the declaration took place about the non-excepted lands and no contrary decision has been cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The exact scope of Section 2 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act has been dealt with in The Secretary of State for India v. Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi (1917) 33 M.L.J. 415. At pages 421 and 422, Abdur Rahim, J., observed that the scope of the section was only to declare that certain classes of properties, which did not belong to any individual private proprietor belonged to the Government. The decision in Chinnappan Chetty v. The Secretary of State for India (1918) I.L.R. 42 Mad. 239 is also to the same effect. Act (III of 1905) only dealt with non-excepted lands, by declaring them as property belonging to the Government; whereas Act (XXVI of 1948) deals with one category of those excepted lands, i.e., the zamindary estate, which actually falls within Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act.

138.Therefore, there was a glaring illegality in holding in earlier precedents cited by the writ petitioners in support of their case that the Government has no vested title in the natham land and exempting the person to occupy the natham against the purview of the Land Encroachment Act. The same was further strengthened from the following portion of the Tamil

Nadu land Encroachment Act, Section 2:

save also in so far as they are temple site or owned as house-site or back yard, are and are hereby declared to be [the property of Government]

139.“Owned as a house sites” prior to the Act, clearly denoted that owner of the said house site. There is a vast difference between the “occupied” and “owned During the British period, the primary source of revenue of the Government was land revenue derived from ryotwari lands, namely agricultural lands held by ryots. In respect of non-agricultural lands, particularly Government poramboke lands reserved for house sites, no regular land revenue assessment was imposed, and consequently, no revenue was collected. Therefore, the mere fact that exemption was granted from payment of land revenue in respect of house sites does not mean that the land ceased to vest with the Government. Exemption from assessment is only a fiscal concession and does not confer title, nor does it take away the Government’s ownership or its statutory authority under the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905. In order to address the growing problem of unauthorized occupation of Government lands and to assert its sovereign rights, the Government enacted the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 140. Section 2 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 specified only word “owned”. Substitution of the word “occupied” in the place of the word “owned” in Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is not permissible under the jurisprudence of interpretation and it is well settled principle that a court cannot add or subtract a word. While interpreting a statutory provision, no addition to, or subtraction from, the

Act is permissible. It is not open to court to either add or subtract, a word. The legal maxim a verbis legis non est recedendum means: from the words of law, there must be no departure. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments including the Hon’ble constitution Bench Judgement reported in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533] has held that the court cannot give an extended meaning to the expression. It is not open to the court to aid defective phrasing of the Act or to make up for the deficiencies. It is not open to the court to recast, rewrite, or re-frame the provision. Plain and unambiguous construction has to be given without addition and substitution of the words. The temptation of substituting words by explaining what the legislators would have thought is to be discouraged. Court has to consider what has been said and not what has not been said. It is wrong and dangerous to proceed by substituting some other words for the words of the statute. When literal reading produces an intelligible result it is not open to substitute other words or add words to statute. Making any generous addition to the language of the Act would not be a construction of the statutory provision; rather, would be an amendment thereof. While interpreting the provision the court only interprets the law. The intention of the legislation must be found by the words used by the legislature itself. Hence, This Court cannot substitute the word “occupied” in the place of “owned” in interpreting the Section 2 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act,1905.          

141. Further, during the hearing of this Full Bench, after the argument on the side of the writ petitioners the learned Additional Advocate General produced G.O., which passed the following orders:

19.09.2025

25.09.2025

Having heard the learned Senior Counsels and the learned Additional Advocate General, the following directions are issued:

(i) The learned Additional Advocate General is requested to furnish details regarding the land survey conducted pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 1971, Revenue (SS.II) Department, dated

14.10.1988, wherein it was directed that the Assistant Settlement Officer should inspect the holdings in Madurai, Coonoor, Dharapuram, Thanjavur, and Tiruvannamalai.

(ii) The report should include specific

details concerning:

(a)    the number of Taluks in each of the

aforementioned Districts;

(b)   the number of Taluks in which the

survey was actually conducted; and

(c)    the details of Pattas issued to occupiers

of natham lands in each District.

2. We also note that, by G.O.(Ms)No.531,

Revenue and Disaster Management [Survey and Settlement Wing II (1)] Department, dated 08.08.2025, survey has been directed to be conducted in the Districts specified in the said Government Order. Such a survey should also comply with the stipulations outlined in G.O.Ms.No. 1971, Revenue (SS.II) Department, dated

14.10.1988. The details of the surveys conducted in these Districts should also be submitted to this Court

Today, Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government

Pleader, appeared for the official respondents in all cases.

2.  An affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner

of Land Administration, Chennai, which apparently, according to the Commissioner, satisfies the queries raised by this Court in the previous hearing date, dated 12.09.2025. Perusal of the affidavit and the details appended thereto show that it is a poor reflection of the details sought.

3.  Further details to be given by the Commissioner

who is to file a better affidavit giving details about (i) total number of Taluks in each one of the Districts, (ii) total number of Taluks in which survey was directed to be done, (iii) the total number of Taluks where the survey was conducted and (iv) the reason why survey was not conducted in the Taluks which has been left out in each District.

 4.The number of villages in each District and the

number of natham patta generated/issued may also be given.

5.We are concerned with the statement that it is

“inferred” that natham survey was conducted in almost all

Taluks except 12 Taluks in old Madras City and Kolli Hills in Namakkal Taluk. Statistics and details should reflect actual figures and inferences cannot to be drawn. The details should be evident on the face of the record. Necessary documents in this regard may also be appended. The status of examination of rough pattas may also been given. A better affidavit has to be filed and presented before this Court on 17.10.2025.

142.After hearing further arguments and filing of written argument, the case was reserved. The learned Advocate General had placed before the Court several Government Orders issued by the State governing the classification and regularization of natham lands and data’s.

143.The Government issued orders to survey the natham sites and the agricultural lands used for non-agricultural purpose in the State of Tamilnadu vide G.O.Ms.No.1177 C.T. And R.E.Department dated 30.10.1987. Following the same, on 22.12.1987, guidelines for doing natham survey was issued both in the villages and municipalities Subsequently, notification was issued to levy the ground rent on all holdings vide G.O.Ms. No.1971, Revenue Department, dated 14.10.1988. The said Government Order, contained classification of the lands, ground rent rate, rough pattas, procedure for granting the rough patta and appeals and revision provisions. In the said process, before issuing rough patta of natham, a duty was cast upon the special Tahsildar to grant patta in the case of the assignment order was granted and in the case of no assignment order, the Special Tahsildar will decide the ownership of the property on the basis of the enjoyment for a period of thirty years prior to the date of publication of notification dated 14.10.1988. Subsequently, the Government withdrawn the levy of ground rent by G.O.Ms.No.454 dated 13.05.1996. Thereafter, the scheme was closed as completed. Subsequently, there was unholly union between the corrpurt officials and individuals to get the natham rough patta. The same was noticed by the Then Additional Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Land Administration issued the circular  dated 07.08.2015 to stop the usurping of housesites under the guise of the natham settlement  

144.The said circular was placed before the Division Bench of this Court in the eviction proceedings initiated against an individual on the side of the Government. The Division bench without any challenge in a manner known to law quashed the same on the basis of the precedents occupied on field on the date that the nathamland never vest in the government. Since, I hold that the nathamland vest with the government in this full bench reference, I place the said circular only to demonstrate  on going fraud in making the claim of occupied natham before this court.

145.Subsequently, since natham settlement as per  G.O.Ms.No.1971 dated 14.10.1988 was completed in the year 1996, to give the final disposal of the “Held-Over” cases without authority, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 05.02.2021 to dispose the long pending “Held-over” cases and also the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 04.05.2023 for classification of lands to accurately reflect private and Government ownership of the lands for natham land records and the nomenclature in the natham adangal was changed as a “ryotwari Manai” and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

4.The Government after careful examination of the proposal of Director of Survey and Settlement and Commissioner of Land Administration hereby Issue order for prescribing a uniform nomenclature with respect to the classification of Natham lands to be brought online, to accurately reflect private and Government ownership of lands for Natham Land Records In the State (except Chennai City) as detailed below:

Sl.

N

o.

Classification nomenclature inNatham adangal

To be recorded as

1

nanjal/punjal/manai with pattadar names

Ryotwari Manai

2

Natham poramboke with pattadar, names

Ryotwari Manai

3

Natham sondham with pattadar names

Ryotwari Manai

4

Natham private with pattadar names

Ryotwari Manai

5

Arasu mania/sarkar mania with pattadar name

Ryotwari Manai

6

Natham lands that are classified as

Ryotwari Manal Sarkar Poramboke A-

Register (Rural), but have been assigned

Natham patta with proper entries in

Natham Adangal. under Natham Settlement scheme in 1996/ Arasu Porambokes, with pattadar names.

Ryotwari Manai

7

Lands that are classified as ‘Sarkar Ryotwari Manai Poramboke’ and marked as fhypkid remarks column of Natham adangal transaction (with conditional patta issued by the condition period)

Ryotwari             Manai

(National Informatics

Centre to block transaction for

condition period)

8

Lands that are classified as ‘Sarkar |

Sarkar Poramboke  and marked as fhypej;jk; & fhypkid in the remarks column of natham adangal, but without enjoyer.

Sarkar Poramboke

9

Lands that are classified as temple, Sarkar

Poramboke burial ground, roads, State Highways, National Highways, parks, schools and other public utilities In Natham survey.

Sarkar Poramboke

5. The Director of Survey and Settlement and

Commissioner of Land Administration are requested to take necessary further action on the orders issued at Para 4 above to reflect the correct classification in Natham Land Records.

(By Order of the Governor)

         146.Subsequently, the Government in order to give patta by way of the assignment issued various G.Os, dated 12.03.2024 and to implement the same, issued further G.Os, dated 06.08.2025, 08.08.2025 and there was a program of conversion into ryot manai.   AT this juncture, I am duty bound to address the submission of learned counsel  Thiru.J.Bharathan that Revenue Standing Orders, Government Orders relating to the administration of land has no legal force. The said submission is against the settled position of law and this issue is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of this Court in Nagaratnamma v. Ibrahim Sahib reported in (1955 (1) MLJ 49) has authoritatively held that the Board Standing Orders, having been issued by the competent authority in exercise of its statutory powers governing revenue administration, have a binding legal force.

147.After issuance of the above Government Orders and the Division Bench judgment in Anbanandan’s case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has   declared the ratio laid down therein as per incuriam, and  also issued consequential directions to the Land Commissioner to frame guidelines and grant patta in favour of the writ petitioners. Subsequent to this, the Division Bench in Elumalai case, made an elaborate consideration of the entire legal framework relating to land classification, vesting, and the nature of Gramanatham and Government poramboke lands, categorically held that the lands in question stood vested with the Government and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act would squarely  applicable to such encroachments. In almost all cases, the petitioners have filed writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to issue patta. I find no logic in the claim of the petitioners, who, without any authorization, have occupied the land and thereafter seek patta by filing writ petitions. This itself demonstrates that they are not authorized to occupy the Natham land. Once the petitioners claim patta from the Government, it clearly indicates that they are not the owners of the property and that they have admitted the title of the Government. Hence, I add this as an additional reason to conclude that the Natham land vests with the Government and that the authorities empowered under the Land Encroachment Act would have jurisdiction over such encroachments. Therefore, I am  not inclined to place reliance upon or further dwell on the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Krishnamurthy’s case.

148.As per the Government order issued to regularize the natham scheme, atleast the minimum requirement of establishing their enjoyment and possession for the continuous period of 30 years prior to the year 1960 as per the  notification of G.O.Ms.No.1971 dated 14.10.1988 is required to be proved to claim the title against the Government and  obtain natham patta. The grant of  natham patta is not a matter of course, but is subject to individual verification of eligibility, title, classification of land, and compliance with the governing statutes and executive instructions. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot assume the role of the statutory authority nor compel the issuance of patta in the absence of a legally recognizable right. Such directions, in effect, bypass the mandatory statutory scrutiny and undermine the exclusive jurisdiction vested with the competent revenue authorities. Such being the legal position, the Learned single judge in Krishna moorthy’s case without any legal basis, has issued the direction to grant patta on the basis of the averment made in the writ petition by usurping the power of the revenue authorities by entertaining the writ of mandamus without any legal right. Therefore  the subsequent Division Bench judgment in ‘Elumalai case’ discussed  extensively and reiterated the view that natham land vested with the government and same was reserved for landless poor, homeless eligible individuals for residential purpose only and not allowed for commercial exploitation with finding that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Krishnamurthy’s case need not be followed. Hence, in my considered opinion, the said Division Bench judgment in ‘Elumalai case reflects the correct and authoritative exposition of law on the subject which I also concur with. As a consequence, I hold that the occupied natham always vested with the Government and Authority under Act 1905, has jurisdiction to invoke provisions  in respect of occupied natham.

149.The expression “occupied natham” has not been clearly defined either under the relevant statute or under the applicable legal frame work. In the absence of a clear statutory definition of “occupied natham,” any conclusion regarding its legal character and vesting cannot be conclusively determined. Therefore  it would be wholly unsafe to hold, as a matter of law, that such lands do not vest with the Government and that the Government lacks jurisdiction under the Land Encroachment Act. If such an interpretation is accepted, it would lead to incongruous and anomalous consequences. It would enable persons, including influential encroachers, to unlawfully occupy natham lands and thereafter assert possessory rights, thereby frustrating the authority of the State and defeating the object of the governing statutory framework. Such an interpretation would, in effect, legitimize encroachments in the absence of lawful entitlement.

150. In the Full Bench judgment of “Madathapu Ramaya case”, all the three Hon’ble Judges consistently held that the persons in occupation were not landholders but only encroachers. The Court further observed that under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, only a “landholder” would fall within the ambit of liability, and since the occupants were mere encroachers, there was no statutory authority to impose penalty under the said Act. Consequently, the amounts recovered were directed to be refunded.   However, it is significant to note that while granting refund on the limited ground of inapplicability of the Revenue Recovery Act, the Full

Bench categorically held that the occupants were encroachers and that the proprietary right in the soil vested with the Government. In particular, it was observed that Gramanatham or village site land is presumed to be freehold in the soil vested with the Government, unless the contrary is established. The above legal position was further considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jayaram Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was categorically held that a person claiming title over Gramanatham must substantiate his claim either by proving a valid grant from the Government or by establishing title through adverse possession. The same view finds support in book of “Sundaraja Iyengar”, which states that the soil vests with the Government and that such vesting can be divested only by a valid grant or by operation of law. In view of the above discussion on the basis of authorities and the settled position of law, I finally conclude that   

(i)the word occupied natham has no legal sanctity and legal backing as there is no such word either in the Tamil Nadu land Encroachment Act, 1905, or in the Tamilnadu Estate Abolition Act, or Tamilnadu minor Inam ( Abolition and conversion) Act, 1963 and Tamilnadu Inam (Abolition and conversion)Act, 1963 and hence, the   view that the occupied natham is exempted under the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 deserves to be rejected. Therefore, I find no justification to group Natham lands as

“occupied” and “unoccupied”.

         ii)The Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, only referred about “the land owned as house site” and “not occupied natham”. Even natham means house sites but does not mean occupied natham. The word “owned” requires existence of the house sites prior to the date of the  commencement of Act, 1905 i.e., legal possessory right recognized by the Government is material requirement. To claim the exemption under the owned house site, the person in possession has to prove his legal right recognized by the

Government.

         Iii) “Natham”, Natham Poramboke is a type of communal land. 

151.In view of the foregoing reasons, I differ with the judgment of the Hon’ble Thiru Justice C.V.Karthikeyan concurred by Hon’ble Ms.Justice P.T.Asha  and I finally conclude with the following finding:

(i)             The lands shown as natham or natham poramboke, in the remarks column of A register or RSR, even if called as occupied natham, always vest with government; 

(ii)           Consequently, the provision of Tamilnadu Land Encroachment

Act, 1905 can be invoked in respect of the occupied gramanatham lands.

(iii)         I concur with the view taken by the Division Bench in

“Anbananthan” case and “T.Elumalai” Case.

(iv)         I record my sincere appreciation for the learned counsel on both sides for their erudite and dispassionate submissions, and for placing the conflicting precedents before this Full Bench, which greatly assisted in answering the reference.

152.  In the result in view of the majority Judgment, the reference:-

“Whether the occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 can be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands?” is answered that:

“The occupied grama natham lands do not vest with the

Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act

1905 cannot be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands.”

153.  The Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals may be listed before the appropriate Courts for orders in accordance with the answer given by us in the reference.

 [C.V.K.J.,]     [P.T.A.J.,]     [K.K.R.K.J.,]

06.03.2026

vsg Index:  Yes/No

Internet:  Yes/No

Speaking / Non Speaking Order

To

1.               The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul.

2.               The Revenue Divisional Officer

Palani Tlauk, Dindigul District.

3.               The Tahsildar

Vedasandur Taluk

Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

4.               The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer

Kujioliyamparai Panchayat Union Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. Madurai – 625 001.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

AND

P.T.ASHA, J.,

AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

vsg

Pre-Delivery Order made in

W.P.Nos. 19720 of 2017, 8855, 18441, 18436, 16605, 20083, 21072,

28927, 25142, 22162 & 21323 of 2025

06.03.2026