Madras High Court
Nallasivam vs The District Collector on 6 March, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, P.T.Asha
1
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
2
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
3
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
4
& 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
5
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
6
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
7
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
8
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 land-
revenue 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.”https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
9[Emphasis Supplied]
13. Justice Boddam held as follows:-
“It is clear that the plaintiff was not a land-
holder 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 tohttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
10time. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
11and 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 4https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
12of, 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 otherhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
13land-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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
14“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
15
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
16
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 respondentshttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
17have 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
18
[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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
19
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
20
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 :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
21‘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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
22
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 fromhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
23arbitrarily 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 Acthttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
24XXVI 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, nohttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
25income 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 futilehttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
26one 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, ryotwarihttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
27lands, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
28
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
29
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
30Court 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 Gramahttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
31Natham 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 :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
32“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 porambokehttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
33by 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
34
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
35
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 conventionshttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
36and 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 free-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
37hold 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 Pattahttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
38Holder; 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
39
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
40
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
41
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 smallhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
42triangle 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
43
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
44
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
45
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
46
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.”https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
47
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 primevalhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
48institutions. 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 themhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
49as 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
50
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
51
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
52
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 ithttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
53obviously 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 suchhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
54as 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
55
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 house-
sites to poor homeless people. The meaning of the word Grama Natham or
its reference in the Land Encroachment Act has been totally overlooked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
56
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
57
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
58
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 andhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
59a 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. Wehttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
60may 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
61
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
62
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
63
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
64
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 non-
completion 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
65
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
66
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
67
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
68
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 re-
issuance 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
69
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
70
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
71
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
72
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
73
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
74
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
75
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
76
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, “Encroachment Act 1905”
1905
The madras Esates Land Act, 1908 “ Estate land Act 1908”
The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition “Estate Act 1948”
and Conversion into Ryotwari)Act
1948
The Tamil Nadu Inam Estates “Inam Act 1963”
(Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963
The Tamilnadu Minor Inam “Minor Inam Act, 1963”
(Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
77Sl.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 P. Indira Prasad v State of T.N
2267
9 Order in W.P. No. 2855 of R. Shanmugaraj v The District
2013 dated; 01/11/2018 Collector, Tiruppurand others
10 Order in W.P. Nos. 7051 Dr. V. Kalanidhi v The State of Tamil
& Nadu andothers)
7052 of 2017 dated S. Anbanathan v District Collector,
15/09/2023 PerambalurDistrict and others
2024 (1) CWC 438
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 othersJUDGMENTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
78Sl.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 – Seshachala Chetty and others v Para
FB 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
anotherGOVERNMENT ORDERS RELATING TO GRAMANATHAM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
79Sl.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
80
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/ Proceedings of
Commissioner of Department of
2012 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/ Circular issued by Additional Chief
2015 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
81
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
82
13 27/08/2024 R1/7699421/ Circular issued by Commissioner of
2024 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
83cultivators 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
84
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
85
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
86
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
87
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
88Government 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
89petitioner. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
90this 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
91namely “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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
92
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, 1963https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
93(17)”ryoti land”-(i)in (1)Except where the Government otherwise
relation to an
direct, no person admitted by a landholder into
existing inam estate
shall have the same possession of any communal land or forest or
meaning as in clause
other land which is not a ryoti land, shall be
(16) of section 3 of
the Estates Land entitled to any rights in, or to remain in
Act; and(ii)in
possession of, such land:Provided that nothing
relation to a new
inam estate shall contained herein shall apply to lands for which
mean cultivable land
the landholder is entitled to a ryotwari patta
in such estate other
than private land, under section 9.
but does not include
(2)A direction under sub-section (1) allowing
–
(a)beds and bunds of any person to remain in possession of any such
tanks and of supply,
land may specify –
drainage, surplus or
irrigation channels; (i)the assessment or ground-rent payable to the
(b)threshing
Government on the land for each fasli year
floor, .cattle-stands,
village sites and commencing with the fasli year in which the
other lands situated
inam estate is notified, and
in any new inam
estate which are set (ii)such special terms and conditions, including
apart for the
the period for which such person may remain in
common use of the
villagers; possession of the land as the Government may
(c)lands granted on
consider necessary in the public interest.
service-tenure either
free of rent or on Explanation. – In this section, “communal
favourable rates of land” means any land of the description
rent granted before mentioned in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b)
the passing of this of clause (16) of section 3 of the Estates Land
Act so long as the Act and in item (a) or item (b) of sub -clause
service-tenure (ii) of clause (17) of section 2 of this Act.
subsists;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
94
116. As per the Section 2(17) of the Act, 1963 village sites are non-
ryot 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 WorksIn 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
95
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. 1917 40 Mad 410 F.B.
MADATHAPU RAMAYYA VS SESHACHELA CHETTY VS
SECRETARY OF STATE CHINNASAMI
The land is a portion of the grama The general presumption of the
natham or village site and common law of India that the
presumably the free hold in the ownership of all unoccupied
soil is in the Government. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
96
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 occupyinghttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
97village 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
98
120.
LAND TENURES IN THE MADRAS PRESIDENCY
-by S.Sundararaja Iyengar
The freehold in the soil of gramanatham in a ryotwari In a mirasi village also the
village is in government. Its right therein consists in presumption is that the
regulating the distribution of unoccupied natham among the freehold in the soil of
intending applicants for house sites and to ensure its gramanatham vests in
utilization for such purpose. The owners of houses and government büt the
house sites in natham as well as grantees of unoccupied presumption is liable to be
natham who have satisfied the condition of the grant by rebutted byproof of grant,
building houses are at liberty to dispose of them in any prescription or user.
manner they choose.
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 andhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
99where 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
100Section 3 of the Minor Inam Section 3 of the Inam Section 3 of the Tamil
(Abolition and Conversion Estates (Abolition and Nadu Estates (Abolition
into Ryotwari Act 1963) Conversion into and conversion into
RyotwariAct 1963) Ryotwari Act 1948)
b) every minor inam including b) the entire inam estate b) the entire estate
all communal lands and (including all communal (including all communal
porambokes, waste lands, lands and porambokes, lands; porambokes; other
pasture lands, forests, mines other non-ryoti lands, non-ryoti lands; waste
and minerals, quarries, rivers waste lands, pasture lands; pasture lands; tanks
and streams, ‘[tanks and lands, forests, Mines and lands; forests; mines and
ooranies (including private minerals, quarries, rivers minerals; quarries; rivers
tanks and ooranies) and and streams [tanks and and streams; ‘[tanks and
irrigation works], fisheries and ooranies including private ooranies (including private
ferries, situated within the tanks and ooranies) and tanks and ooranies) and
boundaries thereof, shall stand irrigation works] fisheries irrigation works]; fisheries
transferred to the Government And ferries, shall stand and ferries, shall stand
and vest in them free of all transferred to the transferred to the
encumbrances, and the Madras Government and vest in Government and vest in
City Land Revenue Act, 1851 them free of all them, free of all
(Central Act XII of 1851) encumbrances, and the encumbrances and the
except sections 2 and 12, the Tamil Nadu Revenue [Tamil Nadu] Revenue
Madras City Land Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 Tamil Recovery Act, 1864
(Amendment) Act, 1867 Nadu Act II of 1864), the (Tamil Nadu Act Il of
(Madras Act VI of 1867), the Tamil Nadu Irrigation 1864), the [Tamil Nadu]
Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Cess Act, 1985 (Tamil Irrigation Cess Act, 1865
Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II Nadu Act VII of 1865), (Tamil Nadu Act VII of
of 1864), the Tamil Nadu and all other enactments 1865), and all other
Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 applicable to ryotwari enactments applicable to
(Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), areas shall apply to the ryotwari areas shall apply
[the Tamil Nadu (Transferred inam estate to the estate;
Territory) RyotwariSettlement
Act, 1964, and all other
enactments applicable to
ryotwari lands] shall apply to
the minor inam
c) all rights and interests c) all rights and interests c) all rights and interests
created by the inamdar in or created in or over the inam created in or over the
over his inam before the estates before the notified estate before the notified
appointed day, shall, as against date by the principal orany date by the principal or
the Government, cease and other landholder, shall as any otherlandholder, shall
determine against the Government, as against the Government
cease and determine, cease and determine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
101
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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
102
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
103
(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 thereinhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
104should 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
105
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 house-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
106
site 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
107
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 Sub Old Government Dry, Waste, Source of One Group Class Taram Extent Assignment Name of remarks
Number Division Number or Inam Unsurveyed Irrigation crop or and Pattadar or
Acre Cent Rupees Anna
and Letter, or two sort Innamdar
if any, or Poramboke crop of of the
survey of role Manager of
the field the
Institution
Direction Letter
in which
the land
belongs
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 inhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
108ancient 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 behttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
109any 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
11013.9. 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,https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
111Secretariat, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
112
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
113
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
114
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
115
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
116
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
117
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
118
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
119
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
120save 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
121
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
122
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
123Having heard the learned Senior Counsels and the Today, Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government
learned Additional Advocate General, the following Pleader, appeared for the official respondents in all cases.
directions are issued:
(i) The learned Additional Advocate 2. An affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner
General is requested to furnish details regarding the of Land Administration, Chennai, which apparently, according
land survey conducted pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. to the Commissioner, satisfies the queries raised by this Court
1971, Revenue (SS.II) Department, dated in the previous hearing date, dated 12.09.2025. Perusal of the
14.10.1988, wherein it was directed that the affidavit and the details appended thereto show that it is a poor
Assistant Settlement Officer should inspect the reflection of the details sought.
holdings in Madurai, Coonoor, Dharapuram,
Thanjavur, and Tiruvannamalai. 3. Further details to be given by the Commissioner
(ii) The report should include specific who is to file a better affidavit giving details about (i) total
details concerning: number of Taluks in each one of the Districts, (ii) total number
(a) the number of Taluks in each of the of Taluks in which survey was directed to be done, (iii) the
aforementioned Districts; total number of Taluks where the survey was conducted and
(b) the number of Taluks in which the (iv) the reason why survey was not conducted in the Taluks
survey was actually conducted; and which has been left out in each District.
(c) the details of Pattas issued to occupiers
of natham lands in each District. 4.The number of villages in each District and the
2. We also note that, by G.O.(Ms)No.531, number of natham patta generated/issued may also be given.
Revenue and Disaster Management [Survey and
Settlement Wing II (1)] Department, dated 5.We are concerned with the statement that it is
08.08.2025, survey has been directed to be “inferred” that natham survey was conducted in almost all
conducted in the Districts specified in the said Taluks except 12 Taluks in old Madras City and Kolli Hills in
Government Order. Such a survey should also Namakkal Taluk. Statistics and details should reflect actual
comply with the stipulations outlined in G.O.Ms.No. figures and inferences cannot to be drawn. The details should
1971, Revenue (SS.II) Department, dated be evident on the face of the record. Necessary documents in
14.10.1988. The details of the surveys conducted in this regard may also be appended. The status of examination of
these Districts should also be submitted to this Court 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
124
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
125
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
126
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. Classification nomenclature inNatham adangal To be recorded as
N
o.
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 Ryotwari Manai
name
6 Natham lands that are classified as Ryotwari Manai
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.
7 Lands that are classified as ‘Sarkar Ryotwari Manai
Ryotwari Manai Poramboke’ and marked (National Informatics
as fhypkid remarks column of Natham Centre to block
adangal transaction (with conditional transaction for
patta issued by the condition period) condition period)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
127
8 Lands that are classified as ‘Sarkar | Sarkar Poramboke
Sarkar Poramboke and marked as
fhypej;jk; & fhypkid in the remarks
column of natham adangal, but without
enjoyer.
9 Lands that are classified as temple, Sarkar Sarkar Poramboke
Poramboke burial ground, roads, State
Highways, National Highways, parks, schools
and other public utilities In Natham survey.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
128
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
129
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
130
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
131
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
132
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”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
133
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
134
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
135
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
136
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.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )
137
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:28 pm )