Natham Poramboke lands are designated for residential use only and cannot be exploited for commercial purposes; unauthorized occupants are considered encroachers and may be evicted under governing laws.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.Subramaniam, J.

Under assail is the writ order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.18081 of 2019. The writ petitioner, Periyasaamy Aided High School represented by the Correspondent/Secretary is the appellant before this Court.

2. The writ petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The order pertains to the determination of the lease for Periyasaamy Middle School, which operates on Government land in Erode District, specifically in Bhavani Circle, Padavalkalvai Village (Natham Plot Nos.7/46 and 7/47) and Andiyur Circle, Ammapet Village (Plot No.680/3). The order directs the administrator and principal of the school to pay a lease amount of Rs. 5,03,839/- to the government account and submit the original challan to the authority.

3. The Writ Court observed that Natham land is not Government property, but rather designated for residential purposes. The appellant/petitioner school's Correspondent admitted to operating the school on Natham land. It appears that the appellant/petitioner and respondents colluded to prevent others from occupying the land, which is meant for dwelling purposes.

4. Therefore, the Writ Court rejected the appellant's claim and granted them liberty to pursue their remedy in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Writ Court directed the District Collector, Erode District, to vacate the appellant school from the Natham land within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the writ order. If the school is deemed essential for the area, the Government may allocate alternative land, either government-owned or Poramboke land.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Mrs. E.Sujatha, the former Correspondent/Secretary, had been operating the school and had requested the 2nd respondent/District Collector to grant a 99-year lease and determine the lease amount for the Natham land. However, she failed to pursue the matter further and, regrettably, did not inform the appellant school about the status of the request when the management changed hands.

6. It is further contended that the appellant on realizing the school was operating on Natham land, the appellant approached the Revenue Officials and requested that patta be granted for the land occupied by the school. The 3rd respondent/Tahsildar initiated a proposal to the Sub-Collector, Gobichettipalayam, recommending the issuance of patta to the appellant/School. This proposal, which includes endorsements from the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer (VAO), is currently pending before the Sub- Collector. As the issuance of patta is still under consideration, the appellant argues that the writ order is liable to be set aside.

7. Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that ‘aNtham Poramboke’ cannot be exploited for commercial purposes. Instead, it is to be regulated by the Government, which assigns smaller extents for residential use to eligible persons. In the present case, the subject property was utilised by the appellant/School for commercial purposes without regular Patta being granted in their name. The subject land remains classified as “‘aNtham Poramboke”’ .

Therefore, for all purposes the appellant is considered as an encroacher of “Natham Poramboke”’ land. Therefore, the question of granting of lease or patta would not arise at all.

8. We have considered the judgments on the subject, since there are certain ambiguities raised before this Court then and there that Natham lands do no