Gramanatham land does not vest with the Government, and individual occupiers have the right to resist ejectment or any other act.

1. The above second appeal arises against the judgment and decree, dated 26.04.2005 made in A.S.No.110 of 2003, on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Madurai reversing the judgment and decree, dated 20.02.2003 made in O.S.No.415 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff's society filed the suit arising out of which is the present second appeal thereby questioning the validity and enforceability of the notice issued by the second defendant/Tahsildar in his R.O.C.No.11011/99-A-2, dated 20.12.1999 in and under which, the plaintiff was demanded to pay Rs.16,394/-per cent towards lease in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff has resisted the demand by claiming himself to be the owner of this property on the strength of registered sale deed, dated 06.02.1998 and by denying the existence of any tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the Government, whereas, the ownership of the plaintiff is seriously denied by the contesting defendants/Government Authorities mainly on the ground that the land in question is classified as 'Gramanatham' and is vested with the Government and individuals have no right to effect any transfer or to claim any individual right of ownership over the same. The trial Court on the basis of the available evidence, accepted the claim made by the plaintiff by negativing the right claimed by the Government and held that the impugned notice is not valid and is not binding upon the plaintiff and decreed the suit accordingly. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court though admitted the nature of the property to be Gramanatham, negatived the plaintiff's claim for ownership and vested the ownership of the same upon the Government. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff before this Court.

3. The substantial questions of law framed for consideration in the second appeal are as follows:-

“1. Whether Gramanatham will vest with Government so as to justify the dismissal of the suit claim?

2. What is the legal right of an occupier of Gramanatham? Whether will it not be in favour of the appellant/plaintiff as observed in 2004 CTC 270?.”

4. The simple issue arising for consideration of this Court in this second appeal is as to whether the suit property, being classified as Gramanatham, is vested with the Government or not and what is the right of the occupier over the suit property. The issue is directly answered by our High Court in the judgment reported in 1998 (3) LW 603 in A.K. Thillaivanamand another Vs. The District collector, Chengai Anna District at kanceepuram and others and the judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2004 (3) CTC 270 in The Executive Officer, Kadthur Town Panchayat Vs. V.Swaminathan and others. The learned single Judge of our High Court in A.K.Thillaivanam'scase cited supra dealt with the Writ Petition for a Mandamus, forbearing the Government officers, men, subordinates and agents from in any manner proceeding against the petitioners in respect of the property comprised in survey number in question. The property in question was admittedly Gramanatham and the cause of action for filing the writ petition was the attempt made on the part of the petitioners to convert the agricultural lands into plots and to sell the same and the same way objected to by the Thasildar resulting in police complaint and criminal case also was registered for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., on the ground that the petitioner sold the portion of the Government property. The relief was sought for before the High Court on the ground that the land being Gramanatham does not vest with the Government and the Government officials have no right to proceed against the writ petitioners in respect of the land classified as Gramanatham. Our High Court in para 23 onwards discussed the issue as to whether the Government has any right over the