Madras HC | Division Bench* *W.P. No. 39410 of 2025 | 07.01.2026* *Bench*: Justices S.M. Subramaniam & K. Surender *Petitioner*: Selvakumar S/o Murugesan *Subject*: Grama Natham land + Commercial use + Art 39(b) “material resources of community”

*Madras HC | Division Bench*
*W.P. No. 39410 of 2025 | 07.01.2026*
*Bench*: Justices S.M. Subramaniam & K. Surender
*Petitioner*: Selvakumar S/o Murugesan
*Subject*: Grama Natham land + Commercial use + Art 39(b) “material resources of community”

—

*1. Core Holding*
*Writ dismissed*. Two reasons:

1. *“Material resources of community”*: Ownership/control of such resources must be distributed _“as best to subserve the common good”_ – citing *Art 39(b), Constitution*.
2. *Grama natham = No commercial use*: _“Grama natham lands for commercial establishments are impermissible.”_

*2. What is Grama Natham?*
*Grama natham* = Village house-site poramboke. Land classified in revenue records as _“house sites”_ within village limits, historically meant for residential use by villagers. Not Govt property per se, but also not patta land. Occupants get possession, but _restricted use_.

*3. Why Petition Failed*
From the extract + S.M. Subramaniam J.’s consistent line:

1. *Public purpose test*: Grama natham is _“material resource of the community”_. Art 39(b) mandates it be used for common good – housing for landless poor, not private commercial gain.

2. *Commercial bar*: Petitioner likely sought patta/approval for commercial building on grama natham. Court says *impermissible*. These lands can’t be converted for shops, hotels, factories.

3. *Not maintainable*: Since use itself is barred, writ seeking relief on grama natham for commercial purpose not maintainable. No fundamental/legal right infringed.

*4. S.M. Subramaniam J.’s Pattern on Land Cases*
Justice S.M. Subramaniam has repeatedly held:
1. *Water bodies/Poramboke/Grama natham* = _public trust_. Can’t be alienated for private/commercial use.
2. *Art 39(b)* invoked to protect community resources – seen in temple land, natham, panchami land cases.
3. *Encroachments*: Strict against commercial encroachment. Only residential use by eligible landless poor allowed after due patta.

*Related judgments*: _T.K. Shanmugam v. State_ – grama natham occupants have no absolute right; _Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association_ – commercial use of natham barred.

*5. Legal Effect*
1. *No patta for shops on grama natham*: Revenue authorities can’t issue patta/regularise commercial buildings.
2. *Eviction valid*: If building is commercial, Tahsildar can evict under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
3. *Art 39(b) as shield*: State can deny conversion citing _“distribution to subserve common good”_.
4. *Writs won’t help*: Courts won’t entertain WP to legalize commercial use of grama natham.

*Bottom Line*: Grama natham = only for dwelling houses of villagers. Want to run business? Buy patta land. Court closed the door on commercial exploitation of village house-sites, using Art 39(b) “common good” doctrine.

Want me to pull full facts of _Selvakumar_ case – what exactly was he running on grama natham land?