The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'Grama Natham Land' and 'Natham Land' and the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 based on this classification.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned show cause notice dated 05.08.2022 bearing Na.Ka.No.221/2022/A6 on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents herein from in any way interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of lands measuring about 10 cents in S.No.1210/1, Mettupalayam Village, Vellakoil Firka, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned show cause notice dated 05.08.2022 bearing Na.Ka.No.221/2022/A6 on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents herein from in any way interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of lands measuring about 20 cents in S.No.1210/1, Mettupalayam Village, Vellakoil Firka, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.)

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. The writ petitions have been filed to challenge the notices dated 5.8.2022 issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 [for brevity, “the Act of 1905”].

2. The precise ground of challenge is in reference to the nature of the land said to be “Natham vacant site”. According to the petitioners, the respondents are not empowered to issue show cause notice for “Natham land”, as ownership of the said land does not vest with the government. A judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.S.Ravi and another v. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District and others [Order dated 11.10.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.26234 and 26237 of 2018] has been given. The prayer is, accordingly, to quash the notices issued without authority of law.

3. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.

4. What has been challenged is only a show cause notice, where the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why an assessment should not be made under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1905 and the total assessment calculated for the unassessed land under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1905. It further states as to why the petitioners should not be evicted from the lands and the plantations, crops, buildings, superstructures and the other remains confiscated by invoking Section 6 of the Act of 1905.

5. No reply to the show cause notice was given by the petitioners alleging that it is a “Natham land”, therefore, the respondents have no authority to cause a notice. In any case, if a show cause notice is issued without authority of law, a writ petition would be maintainable.

6. The question to be decided is as to whether the land in question is “Grama Natham land” or “Natham land”. The notice, no doubt, refers to the land details/classification showing it to be “Natham vacant site” and extent of possession in each of the case is 0.20 cents by placing barbed fencing. The land in question is a vacant land. However, if it is “Grama Natham land”, then the respondents would not have authority to proceed further, because it would then be governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of T.S.Ravi and another, supra. It is, however, necessary to clarify that the classification of the land could have been pursued by the petitioners by referring to the revenue records of the land in question, but no material has been produced.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is relying on the notices with regard to the classification of land, to which a serious contest has been made by learned State Government Pleader. It is submitted that for “Grama Natham Land” the Act of 1905 would not be applicable, but there is a difference between “Grama Natham Land” and “Natham Land”.

8. In any case, we find that if the subject-matter is governed by the Division Bench judgment in the case of T.S.Ravi and another, supra, the re