Writ Bar Against Section 6 Eviction Notices and State Regulation of Grama Natham (Commercial Use Impermissible)

1) Introduction

The petitioner, Selvakumar, sought to quash an eviction order/“final notice” dated 12.09.2025 issued by the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (“1905 Act”), and to restrain revenue authorities from interfering with his possession. The petitioner’s core factual claim was that the land is classified as grama natham, that he is in occupation and running a shop, and therefore the Government has no right over an “occupied grama natham”.

The State opposed, asserting that encroachment proceedings are maintainable over grama natham lands by virtue of Revenue Standing Orders (“RSOs”) 21(1) read with 26(1), and that commercial occupation is not permissible in such lands intended for regulated village habitation and public purposes.

2) Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that a final notice under Section 6 of the 1905 Act must be challenged through the statutory appeal under Section 10 before the District Collector/Appellate Authority, who can conduct a detailed factual enquiry. The Court further held that the Government is empowered to regulate grama natham lands under the RSOs, and that grama natham lands are primarily meant for regulated assignment for dwelling houses (especially for landless/homeless poor), and not for commercial establishments. The Court treated earlier Full Bench rulings (1904 and 1923) as binding on the Government’s power to regulate grama natham, and held that a recent “Full Bench” decision cited by the petitioner did not displace the earlier binding position because it contained a dissent (lack of a clear majority ratio).

3) Analysis

A) Precedents Cited

• Madathapu Ramaya Vs. The Secretary of State for India in Council reported in [ILR 1904 (27) Mad 386]
  Role in the present case: Cited as an early Full Bench authority supporting the proposition that grama natham/village site lands are within the Government’s regulatory domain and are not susceptible to being converted into private ownership merely by occupation. The present Bench uses it to reject the petitioner’s broad claim that “occupied grama natham” is beyond Government action.
• the Taluk Board, Dindigul Vs. Venkatarama Ayyar and others reported in [1923 (18) LW 366]
  Role in the present case: Treated as the principal binding Full Bench statement (1923) that the Government is empowered to regulate grama natham lands. The Court explicitly relies on this to conclude that grama natham cannot be treated as a “free-for-all” category where encroachers can claim title against the State.
• Kaman @ Kamatchi Vs. The District Collector and others in W.P.(MD) Nos.19720 of 2017 etc., batch dated 06.03.2026
  Role in the present case: Raised by the petitioner as “recent Full Bench” support. The Court notes that “two Hon’ble Judges have taken one view, while the third Hon’ble Judge authored a dissenting judgement,” and therefore treats the earlier 1923 Full Bench as continuing to bind. In effect, the Court declines to treat Kaman @ Kamatchi as having authoritatively overruled/altered the earlier Full Bench position.
• National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 : 2017 (16) SCC 680
  Role in the present case: Cited for the principle on how to identify binding precedent/ratio, particularly in relation to Bench composition and the binding force of earlier decisions. The Court uses it to justify why, in the face of a split with a dissent in Kaman @ Kamatchi, the earlier Full Bench (1923) “continues to be a binding precedent.”

B) Legal Reasoning

C) Impact

• Procedural impact (writ maintainability): The decision strengthens the practice that challenges to a Section 6 final notice under the 1905 Act should be routed through the Section 10 appeal. Litigants who bypass the appeal are likely to face dismissal at the threshold, especially where factual disputes exist.
• Substantive impact (grama natham governance): The judgment reinforces a State-centric regulatory understanding of grama natham, aligning it with RSOs and the older Full Bench line. This may embolden revenue authorities to proceed against occupations—particularly commercial uses—while framing grama natham as a resource earmarked for housing and public purposes rather than private commercial exploitation.
• Precedent-selection impact: By treating the 1923 Full Bench as binding notwithstanding the later split decision in Kaman @ Kamatchi, the judgment signals that litigants cannot assume that citing a “recent Full Bench” label will suffice; the existence of a dissent and the presence/absence of a clear majority ratio may determine whether earlier authority continues to govern.
• Administrative-law impact: The ruling incentivizes fuller record-building before the Collector in appeal, likely increasing the importance of appellate proceedings under the 1905 Act as the primary forum for evidentiary contest (classification, nature of occupation, extent, and entitlement).

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Certiorarified Mandamus”: A combined writ relief—(i) certiorari to quash an impugned order and (ii) mandamus directing authorities to do or refrain from doing something (here, to not interfere with possession).
• Section 6 final notice (1905 Act): A culminating step in the statutory process for removal of encroachments from Government land. The Court treats it as a stage that must ordinarily be met with the statutory appeal, not a writ petition.
• Section 10 appeal (1905 Act): A statutory remedy to the District Collector (Appellate Authority) allowing fact-finding and hearing. Courts usually require parties to exhaust such remedies before invoking Article 226.
• “Grama natham”: Village site land traditionally associated with habitation. In this judgment, it is not treated as ownerless or immune from State control; rather, it is treated as land that the Government can regulate and assign under RSOs, especially for dwelling houses and public purposes.
• Revenue Standing Orders (RSOs): Executive/administrative instructions guiding land administration. Here, RSO 21(1) (assignment of grama natham/village site for building, with conditions and extent limits) and RSO 26(1) (unauthorised occupation and application of the 1905 Act) are used to support State regulatory power.
• Directive Principles (Article 39(b) & (c)): Non-justiciable constitutional principles used to guide interpretation and policy orientation—here, to justify a distributive, public-interest approach to scarce community land resources.

5) Conclusion

Selvakumar v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government reiterates two strong propositions: (i) a writ petition is generally not maintainable against a Section 6 final notice under the 1905 Act due to the efficacious appeal under Section 10, and (ii) grama natham lands are subject to Government regulation under the RSOs and cannot be privately appropriated by mere occupation—particularly for commercial establishments. By anchoring its reasoning in the older Full Bench authorities (Madathapu Ramaya Vs. The Secretary of State for India in Council and the Taluk Board, Dindigul Vs. Venkatarama Ayyar and others) and by invoking National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi to address binding-precedent concerns amid a split in Kaman @ Kamatchi Vs. The District Collector and others, the Court positions this decision as a procedural and substantive checkpoint: encroachment disputes over grama natham must proceed through statutory channels, and the public-purpose character of such lands will weigh heavily against private commercial occupation.