Gramanatham lands are considered private property and do not vest with the Government, thus eviction under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is impermissible unless for communal use.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 6 - Petitioner challenged eviction under the Act, claiming the land is Gramanatham, not Government interest. Respondents deemed petitioner an encroacher, asserting land classification as Poramboke. Court finds Gramanatham lands do not vest with Government and eviction under Act impermissible. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Property rights - The classification of land as Gramanatham protects it from Government claim unless used for communal purposes.

(C) Jurisdiction - Appeal mechanism under Act does not preclude direct challenge in writ jurisdiction based on urgency. (Paras 4, 12, 21).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a charitable trust, held Gramanatham property without title issues, claiming eviction notice improper and lacking legal basis. Court noted past rulings affirming land status.

Findings of Court:
Eviction order quashed, with acknowledgment of possible future acquisition for public projects.

Issues: Determination of land classification; Government title claims versus private ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed prior judgments declaring Gramanatham lands as private property not subject to Government eviction, reiterating no vested interest unless communal use is established.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of favorably for petitioner.

ORDER

(Order made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)

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 are ready to pay compensation presently for the superstructure. Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in response submits that the petitioner will not resist the taking over of possession once notice is issued for acquisition of land in accordance with law and not in the proceedings under the Act.

6. We heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned Senior Counsel and thereafter Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 86400

Gramanatham lands are considered private property and do not vest with the Government, thus eviction under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is impermissible unless for communal use.

Cases Referred (3)