The main legal point established in the judgment is that Gramanatham lands are private interest lands and do not vest with the Government, and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked for Gramanatham land.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.1673/2023/B1, dated 24.08.2023 and Na.Ka.1673/2023/AA1, dated 25.08.2023 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further forbearing the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners with respect the property in S.No.1382/2, Pasali 1432, Poonamallee village, Tiruvallur district.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, dated 24.08.2023 in R.C.No.1673/2023/B1, thereby, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is an encroacher liable to be evicted from the subject premises as per Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the consequential notice issued as per Section 6 of the Act, dated 25.08.2023, bearing R.C.No.1673/2023/B1.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property comprised in S.No.1382/2 ad-measuring to an extent of 3310 Sq.mts in Poonamallee Village and Taluk, Tiruvallur District was originally the absolute property of the forefathers of one C.Narasimha Swamy, the Managing Trustee of the petitioner trust, namely, R.A.V.Kovil Annayya Charities. It is their absolute ‘Gramanatham’ property. They created a trust and dedicated the income from the trust property to be used for the expenses of ‘Arulmigu Thirukachi Nambi Thiru Avatar Dhivya Mahotsava’. There are superstructures in the property in the nature of commercial shops which is rented out and the income is defrayed for the said purposes of the trust.

3. While so, now the new Chennai Metro Rail project line is planned in the said area. In view of the CMRL line, the road has to be realigned/extended. For the said purpose, the above property is now required for the respondents. However, without issuing any notice for acquisition of the above property belonging to the petitioner, the respondent simply issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner approached this Court against the said action and by order dated 14.03.2023 in W.P.No.31688 of 2022, this Court directed that the petitioner’s objections shall be duly considered by the respondents. The respondents rejected the contention holding that the land is classified as ‘Sarkar Poramboke’ land and that ‘Gramanatham’ land can be occupied only by poor for the residential purposes only. Once the property is used for commercial purposes, no right can be claimed that the property is Gramanatham. Even the poor people are entitled to only 3 cents of land as grant from the Government and nothing beyond that. The respondents are attempting to immediately evict the petitioner and hence the petitioner is before this court.

4. Though normally an appeal would lie before the District Collector under Section 10 of the Act, in the instant case, in respect of the same CMRL line in the very same Poonamallee Village in respect of an identical claim of title on the basis of Gramanatham land, this Court recently had decided the issue in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in WP No.31688 of 2022 in A.Sacractice and Ors. Vs. The District Collector and Ors.2023:MHC:1047. The respondents still felt that the matter needs consideration and considering the urgency involved in the issue, both sides argued the matter on merits and accordingly, we had entertained and heard the Writ Petition on merits without relegating the parties to the alternative remedy available under the Act.

5. With respect to the emergent need of the land for CMRL purpose, we had observed that the petitioner can part with the possession subject to its right to claim compensation in respect of the land, as the respondents a