The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the Government's authority to classify and appropriate natham lands, and the rights of individuals in possession of such lands.

1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions, challenging an order passed by the District Collector, Chennai, holding that certain lands in question are classified as Government Poramboke and as Pattina Natham and that therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation for eviction from those lands.

2. I have heard Mr. M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. V. Bharathidhasan, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent.

3. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, were in occupation of various extents of lands in T.S.Nos.145/2, 150/2, 157/2, 158/2, 159/2 and 160/2, in Block No.52, Konnur Village, Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District. The petitioners had also put up superstructures on those lands and were residing in the properties for over several decades, claiming that their predecessors-in-title, had purchased the lands from a Government Servants' Cooperative Society. The petitioners were served with notices under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, on 27.6.2008, on the ground that they were in occupation of Government Poramboke lands and that these lands were required for the formation of a Railway Subway Project. The petitioners submitted replies through their counsel on 17.7.2008 and came up with a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.18311 to 18316 of 2008. Since the writ petitions were classified under the heading "encroachment", the writ petitions were listed before a Division Bench of this Court. By a short order dated 13.10.2008, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction. The brief order of the Division Bench, disposing of the writ petitions, reads as follows:-

"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Subject matter of the challenge in the above writ petitions is a notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905. It appears that pursuant to the said notice, all the six petitioners have given their objections on 2.7.2008, 3.7.2008, 31.7.2008, 31.7.2008, 31.7.2008 and 31.7.2008 respectively and the respective petitioners were put on notice about the compensation amount. In that view of the matter, this Court dismisses the above writ petitions by directing the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, to consider the objections of the respective petitioners and dispose of the same within one month from today. Such disposal shall be after hearing all the parties concerned. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions are closed."

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed further objections on 24.10.2008 and also participated in the enquiry. But, by separate orders dated 10.11.2008, the Tahsildar rejected the objections of the petitioners. The short ground on which the Tahsildar rejected the objections of the petitioners is that in the Permanent Land Records, the classification of the lands in question had been entered as "Cirkar Poramboke Village Natham".

5. Challenging the orders of the Tahsildar dated 10.11.2008, the petitioners filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.27129 of 2008 batch of cases, on the file of this Court. Before the Division Bench before which, these batch of writ petitions came up for hearing, the respondents took two objections viz., (i) that there was a factual dispute with regard to the classification of the land and (ii) that there was an emergency to proceed with the Subway Project. Taking note of both these submissions, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions by an order dated 23.1.2009, directing the petitioners to file an appeal against the orders of the Tahsildar dated 10.11.2008 to the District Collector under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and further directing the Appellate Authority to decide the factual dispute about the classification of