AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to evict
the petitioner from the Grama natham land in Survey No. 1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty,
Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District measuring an extent of 1.38 acres. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
He is the permanent resident in Marulpatty village in Udumalaipettai Taluk. Himself and three of his brothers who constitute a joint family are in
possession and enjoyment of grama natham land in Survey No. 1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty,
measuring an extent of 1.38 acres in total. They are in possession and enjoyment for more than 60 years. The respondents did not assess the
petitioner and his brothers for penal charges and they did not issue any ''B'' Memo to them so far and their enjoyment is without any interference by
the respondents. The entire land is used as a house site wherein they have put up a pucca tiled house by paying house tax and other taxes to the
village panchayat. They also put up a cattle shed and also planted coconut saplings in the rest of the land. Due to the instigation of some people
who are inimical against the petitioner and his brothers, the third respondent threatened the petitioner to evict him from the premises. The petitioner
also made a representation to the respondents on 18.05.2005, explaining their enjoyment over the property and sought for granting patta in their
favour taking into consideration of their long and continuous possession. When the said request was not considered and the respondents have
threatened to evict the petitioner at any moment, the present writ petition came to be filed.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:
The disputed survey numbers are natham poramboke lands and the writ petitioner and his brothers are rich pattadars. They encroached the said
land which was meant for grant of patta to houseless poor and agricultural labourers. Even though the encroachment is not booked by ''B'' Memo,
the public and houseless poor persons have not put up huts on the above land out of fear over the petitioner''s family.
Mr. V. Bharathidhasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his brothers are in possession and
enjoyment of the property, which is a grama natham for more than 60 years and the respondents are not having any right over the said land
classified as grama natham. He also invited this court attention to the decisions made in A.K Thillaivanam and A.K. Dayalan Vs. The District
Collector, Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District, The Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District and The Tahsildar , The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat Vs. V. Swaminathan, The
State of Tamil Nadu, The District Collector and The Revenue Divisional Officer, , State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madasami and Others, in support of
his submission that the respondents are not having any right over the grama natham land to proceed against the petitioner.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit
and submitted that the petitioner has encroached upon the land which is meant for granting patta to the landless poor and agricultural labourers.
Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.
The petitioner and his brothers are in possession and enjoyment of 1.38 acres of land at Survey No. 1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in
Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty, Udumalpet Taluk, which is claimed to be ""grama natham"". Such claim of the petitioner over the
classification of the land in dispute is not denied or disputed by the respondents and on the other hand, their counter affidavit also admits that the
land in dispute is a natham poramboke land. Their only contention in the counter affidavit is that such land is meant for houseless poor and
agricultural labourers for constructing houses which has been illegally encroached upon by the petitioner and his brothers. Once it is admitted that it
is a grama natham or natham poramboke, whether the respondents have got any right to proceed against the petitioner in respect of such lands, is a
question that came up for consideration before this court as early as in the year 1959 wherein this Court in a decision reported in S. Rengaraja
Iyengar and Another Vs. Achikannu Ammal and Another, , has held that ''the title to a house site in grama natham is protected from transfer to the
Government by operation of Madras Act 3 of 1905''. Subsequently in another decision reported in A.K Thillaivanam and A.K. Dayalan Vs. The
District Collector, Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District, The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District and The Tahsildar , a learned single Judge of this Court has observed at paragraph No.
19 as follows:
19...The Village Natham is a land which never vested with the respondents and they have no right to it. Admittedly, when the land has been
classified as village Natham, it is obvious that no portion of the land vests with the respondents. The admitted classification is village Natham and
merely because the petitioners have converted the same into agricultural lands, no right could accrue to the respondents even after conversion.
The learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the status of the land and the right of the Government and thereafter, came to the conclusion
that the village natham land never vest with the Government.
In another decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat Vs. V. Swaminathan, The
State of Tamil Nadu, The District Collector and The Revenue Divisional Officer, , such view of the learned Single Judge was once again approved
at paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 as follows:
Similarly, this Court in A.K Thillaivanam and A.K. Dayalan Vs. The District Collector, Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, The District
Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District and The
Tahsildar and in Krishnamurthy Gounder Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and The Commissioner Kurinjipadi Panchayat, South Arcot District held
that the house sites classified as ''Grama Natham'' cannot be construed as vesting with the Government.
Further ''Grama Natham'' is defined in the Law Lexicon as ""ground set apart on which the house of village may be built"". Similarly, Natham
land is described in Tamil lexicon published under the authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or
portion of a village inhabited by the non-Brahmins; or land reserved as house sites; etc.
In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the admitted classification of the land being a ''Grama Natham'', it is obvious that the land
was never vested with the Government or the Town Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitioners and their ancestors were in exclusive possession of the
lands in question for the past 40 years, the impugned order of the third respondent in cancelling the pattas with a view to evict them summarily at
the instance of the resolution passed by the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further such a summary eviction is not permissible in law when the
disputed question of title is involved for adjudications as laid down by the Apex Court in number of decisions.
In a recent decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madasami and Others, , the nomenclature of the
land was considered and found at paragraph No. 14 as follows:
The factual aspects discussed and found by both the Courts below in respect of the nature of the property viz., Gramanatham is not denied by
the Appellant. Supporting the same, the learned Government Pleader (CS) would submit in his argument that the property was classified as
Gramanatham in the settlement register of the year 1923 and the property being a Gramanatham, the Government alone be the owner of the
property. If, the argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) is accepted, the Suit filed by the plaintiffs would have no legs to
stand and the Appeal should have been consequently allowed. For deciding such crux, we must firstly consider the character and qualities of a land
classified under ''Gramanatham''. There is no dispute that wherever the lands classified as Natham or Natham Poramboke or Gramanatham are
only meant a Gramanatham. The Gramanatham lands were classified and allotted for village people to use them as house sites or for any other
purposes for storing his hay and manure or as a smithy or as a brick-klin or as a place for weaving, etc.
Thus, from the above decision, it could be seen that the lands whether are classified as natham poramboke or grama natham, they are only meant
to be classified as grama natham alone.
Considering all these decisions of this Court and by considering the admitted factual position with regard to the classification of the land as grama
natham, I am of the view that the respondents have got no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land which is in
occupation of the petitioner at S. No. 1007/1, 1007/2, 1007/3 and 1008/1 in Kannamanaickanur village, Marulpatty, Udumalpet Taluk,
Coimbatore District. The respondents have not stated in their counter that they are not trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner''s
enjoyment and on the other hand, it is their case that the petitioner has encroached upon the lands, which is meant for granting patta to houseless
poor and agricultural labourer. Only when the respondents are having any right over the land, they can take action against the petitioner to evict
and to grant patta in respect of the said land to the houseless poor or agricultural labourer. When they do not have any right over the land as held
by this court in the decisions as referred to supra, in my considered view, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner''s peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the land. Accordingly, I find the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.