Occupied residential village habitation lands are private holdings and do not vest with the state. Consequently, the summary eviction power granted under the land encroachment legislation cannot be invoked against individuals in possession of such lands, as they fall outside the statutory definition of Government property.

ORDER :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J .

Kaman @ Kamatchi had filed W.P.(MD).No. 19720 of 2017 in the nature of a certiorari seeking records relating to an order of the fourth respondent, the Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Gujiliyamparai Panchayat Union, Vedasandur Taluk at Dindigul District in Na.Ka.No.1088/2017/D3 dated 19.10.2017 and to quash the same.

2. The said order had been passed by the fourth respondent taking recourse to the provisions under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 holding that the writ petitioner had encroached upon natham land in Vedapatti Village in Gujiliyamparai Panchayat Union and consequently issuing a direction to the Revenue Officials to evict the writ petitioner from the premise under his occupation.

3. The Writ Petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench comprising of the then Chief Justice [K.R.Shriram, CJ] and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S.Srimathy, on 20.06.2025. The Division Bench expressed an opinion that conflicting Judgments have been rendered on the issue whether grama natham lands vest with the Government or do not vest with the Government. If they vest with the Government then the authorities had the right to invoke the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 and if they do not. then, the Officials cannot invoke the provisions of the said Act. The central issue also was whether the provisions of the said Act could be invoked with respect to occupied grama natham lands.

4. Taking into consideration, the contradictory views on this issue, the Division Bench had framed the following point for reference to a larger bench:-

“Whether the occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government and thereby the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 can be invoked in respect of occupied grama natham lands?”

5. Grama natham has been defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built.”

6. In a glossary of Vernacular Judicial and Revenue Terms compiled by the Department of Revenue, Agricultural and Commerce and Public in 1871, the word 'natham' had been defined as “the site of the dwelling of the villagers.” It had also been defined as “the site of the dwelling of the villagers as distinct from the lands attached to the village”. It was also defined as “that part of the village land on which the houses of the mirasidars are built.”

7. It is thus evident that a natham signifies a site of dwelling of the villagers and as ground set apart on which the houses of villagers may be built. In effect, it would signify a house site in a village.

8. The issue under reference is whether such occupied house site could be subject to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905. The word “occupied” could signify that a house had actually been built for residential purposes and that, the house site has been occupied. It could also signify a house site in physical occupation though a house had actually not been built.

9. The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 came to be enacted as a result of a Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in (1904) ILR 27 Mad 386 [ Madathapu Ramaya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ]. The brief facts of that case was that a demand was laid for a sum of 4 annas and one pie by the Government on the appellant for constructing a pial attached to his house upon land which was part of a public road. The Government collected what was described as “prohibitory assessment” and directed the appellant to remove the pial and issued a notice i