Subburaj v. District Collector

Prayer

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to remove the encroachments made at Podhumanthai area in Survey No. 101/13, 101/14, in Thottiapatti Village, Madurai District and restore the bus facility as usual, based on the representation dated 30.06.2014 given by the petitioner.

:ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR, J.)

Claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachments at Podhuchavadi area in Survey No. 101/13, 101/14, in Thottiapatti Village, Madurai District and restore the bus facility, based on the representation, dated 30.06.2014

2. Even as per the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that the abovesaid land is a natham poramboke. Certain persons have encroached most of the area, where houses have been constructed and cattle sheds have been put up. Due to the above, bus facility has been diverted. In his representation, dated 30.06.2014, addressed to the District Collector, Madurai, respondent No. 1, the petitioner has contended that in Thottiapatti village, there is a Podhuchavadi where public functions and temple festivals used to be conducted. Grievance of the petitioner appears to be that inasmuch as there is an encroachment, villagers have to walk three kilometers distance.

3. This Court deems it fit to extract few decisions on natham poramboke lands.

4. The term, “Grama Natham” came into existence, indicating that the land, classified as gramanatham could be used as house sites. In Palani Ammal v. L. Sethurama Aiyangar reported in (1949) 1 MLJ 290 = 62 LW 204, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sathyanarayana Rao held thus:

“Grama Natham a land in the occupation of the individual in possession of the gramanatham cannot be interfered and it could very well resist and also institute a suit in ejectment the trespasser.”

5. In S. Rengaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal reported in (1959) 2 MLJ 513, the Court held that:

“9. …. A house-site owned by a person in what is generally known as gramanatham is not, under Madras Act III of 1905, property of the Government. Section 2 of Madras Act III 1905 says, in regard to lands which are not covered by Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, that those lands are and are hereby declared to be the property of the. Government, save in so far as they are temple-site or owned as house-site or backyard. In order that a land may properly be described as house-site within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 of Madras Act III of 1905, it is not necessary that there should be a residential building actually constructed and standing on that site. A person may in a village habitation own a house in a street and a site on the outskirts of the habitation but within the limits of the gramanatham, which he uses for the purpose of storing his hay and manure, if he is an agriculturist, or as a smithy, if he is a smith, or as a brick-kiln if he is a brick-maker or as a place for weaving if he is a weaver. On such sites, buildings or sheds may when necessary be constructed. But whether such buildings or sheds are constructed or not, such sites are, in my opinion, house-sites within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 of the Madras Act III of 1905. Madras Act III of 1905 is made applicable to an estate when it is notified under Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The provision as to vesting under Section 3(b) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 should be read so as to be in consonance with the provisions regarding the applicability of the enactments relating to ryotwari areas which are expressly made applicable to estates notified under the Act.

10. … Section 18 has no particular application to buildings or house-sites in a gramanatham. A building in a gramanatham (or village habitation) is protected from transfer of title to the Government both under Section 18(1) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and under the Madras Land Encroachment Act (III of 1905). The title to a house site in a gramanatham is protected from transfer to Government by the operation of Madras Act III of 1905.

11. It is not necessary that, in order that the policy underlying Madras Act XXVI of 1948 be completely given effect to, house-sites belonging to private individuals (that is, persons other than the landholder) in a gramanatham, should be transferred to the Government. It is not part of the policy of the Act to transfer to the Government land in which the proprietor had no interest at any time. Further, transfer of title of such house-sites to the Government would be virtually without payment of compensation because there would be no means of determining the part of the total compensation payable for the estate as a whole, which should be regarded as compensation paid for a few cents of house-site in a hamlet of the village. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the Act in relation to transfer of title as to a house site, such ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the owner, because no legislation should be held to be expropriatory in character if such an inference could possibly be avoided.”

6. In N.S Kuppusamy Udayar v. Narthangudi Panchayat reported in (1971) 1 MLJ 190, this Court held that the classification of “Natham Poramboke” and the description of Poramboke in the settlement register will not by itself establish title of the Government to the land in question.

7. In C.V Subbaya v. P. Anjayya reported in AIR 1972 SC 1421, while referring to Section 3(b) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948, the Apex Court held that communal lands, porambokes, other ryotwari lands, waste lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and stream tanks and irrigation works etc, vest with the Government other than lands classifieds as “Gram Natham”.

8. In A. Sankaralingam v. V. Arunachala Reddiar reported in 1993 1 MLJ 472, it has been held that “there is no law saying that all natham properties are Government or Panchayat properties.

9. In A.K. Thillaivanam v. District Collector, Chengai Anna District reported in 1998 3 LW 603, this Court held as follows:

“The village Natham is a land which never vested with the respondents (the State) and they have no right to it. Admittedly, when the land has been classified as Village Natham, it it obvious that no portion of the land vests with the respondents. The admitted classification is village Natham and merely because the petitioners have converted the same into agricultural lands, no right could accrue to the respondents even after conversion.”

10. In A. Srinivasan v. Tahsildar, Madras, S.A No. 1484 of 1995, dated 16.11.2009 relying on the decisions in The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V. Swaminathan reported in 2004 (3) CTC 270 and Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 (3) CTC 221, at paragraph 29, this Court held as follows:

“29. Further, from the decisions cited supra, it is clear that ‘Gramanatham’ cannot be considered, ipso facto, as Government property. Once it is found that item No. 1 of the suit schedule mentioned property is classified as ‘Gramanatham’, it should be held that it does not belong to the Government. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the defendant cannot invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. As such, the notice issued by the defendant, under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is invalid in the eye of law.”

11. In Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 3 CTC 221, this Court held that gramanatham is a land, which never vested with the Government and therefore, eviction of a person in occupation of such land is not permissible under the provisions of Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

12. In The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Karur Taluk, Dharmapuri District v. V. Swaminathan, reported in 2004 2 MLJ 708, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with an issue relating to cancellation of pattas to the occupants of grama natham lands, resolution passed by a panchayat to the effect that the lands were required by the Town Panchayat and the process initiated to evict, after considering the meaning of the terminology and a catena of decisions, at paragraphs 12 and 13 held as follows:

“12. Further, ‘Grama Natham’ is defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which the house of village may be built”. Similarly, Natham land is described in Tamil lexicon published under the authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by the non Brahmins; or land reserved as house sites; etc.

13. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the admitted classification of the land being a ‘Grama Natham’, it is obvious that the land was never vested with the Government or the Town Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitioners and their ancestors were in exclusive possession of the lands in question for the past 40 years, the impugned order of the third respondent in cancelling the pattas with a view to evict them summarily at the instance of the resolution passed by the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further such a summarily eviction is not permissible in law when the disputed question of title is involved for adjudications as laid down by the Apex Court in number of decisions.”

13. In Muthammal v. State Of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 3 LW 361, this Court explained what is poramboke lands and natham poramboke lands, meaning, poram (Text in vernacular) “is outside” and poke (Text in vernacular), is revenue record.

“8. Thus the word “poramboke lands” means the lands which is not assessed to revenue records and it is outside the revenue accounts. Likewise, “gramanatham” is defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which the house of village may be built”. Similarly, Natham land is described in Tamil lexicon published under the authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by the non brahmins; or land reserved as house sites;.”

14. In Ellammal v. State of Tamil Nadu by its Collector of North Arcot District, Sathuvachari reported in 2007 2 MLJ 113, arising out of a suit by the plaintiff therein restraining the Tahsildar from proceeding further with the notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, after considering decisions on this issue at paragraph 13 held as follows:

“13. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the admitted classification of the land being a ‘Grama Natham’, it is obvious that the land was never vested with the Government or the Town Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitioners and their ancestors were in exclusive possession of the lands in question for the past 40 years, the impugned order of the third respondent in cancelling the pattas with a view to evict them summarily at the instance of the resolution passed by the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further, such a summary eviction is not permissible in law, when the disputed question of title is involved for adjudications as laid down by the Apex Court in number of decisions.”

15. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt v. Raghavan reported in 2012 1 CTC 280, a Hon'ble Division Bench held that:

“27. Gramanatham is the village ‘habitation’ where the land holders may build houses and reside. They are also known as ‘House Sites’ (Manai). They were classified as Gramanatham to differentiate from Inam lands, Ryotrwari lands, Pannai lands and Waste lands, while later vested with the Government, the Gramanatham never vested with the State.”

16. In Karana Maravar Service Society rep. by its President v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the District Collector, Madurai reported in 2012 4 LW 92 after considering a catena of decisions and in the light of the classification of the land as “Gramanatham” the legal right of an occupier of gramanatham land, restored the decree for permanent injunction against the enforceability of the notice therein.

17. Natham poramboke is a place meant for dwelling. Government have issued orders recognising even encroachment in other lands. Judicial notice can be taken that orders have been issued by the Government that those who have encroached poramboke lands and if the lands in their possession are not required by the Government, pattas can be issued. When that is the view of a welfare Government, the contention of the petitioner that temple festivals and public functions used to be conducted in Podhuchavadi and the further contention that transport facility has been diverted and that therefore, encroachments have to be removed, cannot be countenanced. Survey Nos. 101/11, 101/13 and 101/14 have been broadly classified as natham. Lands in S. No. 101/11 has been subclassified as street. S. No. 101/13 has been subclassified as Oor Pothu Egali House, which means Village Dhobi's house. S. No. 101/14 has been subsclassfied as Oor Pothu Chavadi (Place of public assembly of the village). From the photographs enclosed in the typed set of papers and the representation dated 30.06.2014, stated to have been sent to the District Collector, Madurai District and others, it could be seen that there are small tiled houses, huts. Outside one house, there is a coir cot. In another house, a cooking vessel is kept outside. Photographs indicate that the houses must be in existence for quiet sometime. Material on record discloses that objections have not been raised at any point of time, till they put their small houses and started dwelling. Basically lands have been described as natham lands. Incidentally, diversion of bus route has been stated. It is for the respondents to take appropriate decision as regards the bus facility to be provided to the villagers. Conducting functions and festivals, and bus facility do not stand in a higher pedestal than dwelling in natham poramboke lands. When people have no place to live, they occupy natham poramboke lands. If festivals and functions are not conducted in natham poramboke, heavens will not fall. We would have appreciated the public spirit and interest of the petitioner, had he filed a writ petition to provide house sites to the poor people. Dwelling in natham poramboke is recognised in law.

18. We find no public interest in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.