"Greedy Men" Can't Claim Village Lands for Shops: Madras HC Shields Grama Natham from Encroachers

In a firm stance on public land use, the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order from grama natham (village site) land, ruling that such pleas are not maintainable without first exhausting statutory appeals. The bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam (who authored the order) and Justice K. Surender underscored that these government-owned lands must serve the landless poor for housing, not commercial ventures by encroachers. The decision in Selvakumar v. Additional Chief Secretary (W.P. No. 39410 of 2025), dated April 20, 2026 , reinforces long-standing precedents amid rising disputes over village sites (2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203).

From Shopfront to Showdown: The Petitioner's Possession Claim

Petitioner Selvakumar, running a shop on the disputed land in Thirukuzhikundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, challenged an eviction notice dated September 12, 2025 , issued by the Revenue Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 . He sought to quash the order and bar officials—from Additional Chief Secretary to District Collector and others—from interfering with his " peaceful possession ." Selvakumar argued the land was classified as grama natham , long-occupied by him, stripping the government of rights over it.

The notice stemmed from alleged unauthorized occupation of government grama natham land, triggering proceedings under the 1905 Act, which targets encroachments on public property.

Petitioner's Plea vs. State's Steely Defense

Selvakumar's counsel, Mr. S. Saravanakumar , contended that occupied grama natham equates to private property, immune from eviction, especially with an existing commercial setup. He cited a recent Full Bench ruling in Kaman @ Kamatchi v. District Collector (W.P. (MD) Nos. 19720 of 2017 batch, March 6, 2026 ), urging recognition of such occupations.

Opposing strenuously, Additional Government Pleader Mr. T. Arun Kumar invoked Revenue Standing Orders (RSO) 21(1) and 26(1) . RSO 21 limits grants of grama natham to 1.25 ares for house-building by low-income, landless families—prioritizing Scheduled Castes/Tribes—and bars excess or commercial assignments without market value. RSO 26 applies the 1905 Act to unauthorized occupations, defining "occupation" broadly to include any appropriation, treating it as trespass liable for eviction and even criminal action.

Decoding the Doctrine: Appeals First, Courts Later

The court wasted no time dismissing the writ on procedural grounds: "No writ petition against a final notice under Section 6 of the 1905 Act is maintainable, since an appeal is contemplated under Section 10 of the 1905 Act ." The District Collector, as appellate authority, must probe encroachments with full hearing rights—High Court intervention on fact-heavy civil rights disputes is barred without exhausting this remedy.

Delving deeper, the bench clarified grama natham 's status via precedents: - Madathapu Ramaya v. Secretary of State (ILR 1904 (27) Mad 386) and Taluk Board, Dindigul v. Venkatarama Ayyar (1923 (18) LW 366)— Full Bench holdings affirming government regulatory power. - The split Kaman @ Kamatchi Full Bench (2026) was sidelined, as the 1923 precedent binds per Supreme Court's National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 SC 5157) on dissenting benches.

Tying to Article 39(b)-(c) of the Constitution—directing resource distribution for common good—the court invoked public interest : lands for homeless poor or public use, not "greedy men" or influential encroachers. Commercial shops? Impermissible.

Court's Cutting Quotes: Echoes of Authority

Key observations from the judgment:

" Grama natham lands are not meant to be encroached upon by the greedy men or by any person with muscle or political powers. All such lands are to be regulated by the Government in the public interest ..."

"The Government is empowered to regulate grama natham lands, which are to be assigned for the construction of dwelling houses in terms of the Revenue Standing Orders to landless/homeless poor persons and may also be utilised for public purposes."

"A combined reading of RSO 21 and RSO 26 would reiterate that the Government is empowered to regulate the grama natham lands. It is not as if any person can encroach upon the grama Natham lands and claim ownership or title. If such a situation is permitted, it would lead to lawlessness."

Eviction Upheld: A Blueprint for Future Fights

"The present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed." No costs imposed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

This ruling signals stricter enforcement: encroachers must appeal locally first, commercial claims on grama natham face rejection, and 1923 precedents guide allocations. It curbs opportunistic occupations, prioritizing constitutional equity for the vulnerable—potentially clearing paths for housing schemes while deterring "lawlessness" in Tamil Nadu's villages.