A.RAMAIAH v. Tamilnadu Government

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 portion of the grama natham and constructed a thatched house for dwelling purpose. They were in peaceful possession of the property without any interference. Accordingly, the plaintiff states that he acquires right from his ancestors and continue to be in possession of portion of the grama natham land. The plaintiff is paying kist and house tax for the suit mentioned property. However, the 4^th defendant-Chithalangudi Panchayat commenced action for evicting the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to move the suit for permanent injunction.

2. The 4^th defendant filed written statement stating that the suit

property is a 'natham poramboke' vested with Chithalangudi Village Panchayat. It is contended that the plaintiff has very recently encroached with thatched house. It has been falsely stated that the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's ancestors. The plaintiff's possession is with the inference of the State authority and in this regard, B- Memo was also issued by the authority. The ancestors of the plaintiff has no right over the suit property. Payment of house tax would not confer any title

Page 3 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 in respect of the natham poramboke land. The plaintiff is an encroacher and he is in illegal possession of the natham poramboke land. Since the suit property is vested with the village panchayat, notice was issued to evict the plaintiff from the suit property in due process of law. The suit property is essential for implementation of welfare scheme works in the public interest. The plaintiff is an encroacher. Thus, he should be evicted from the

encroachment in the interest of public. It is the duty of the respondents to initiate action in the interest of public, as the property is to be utilised for implementing welfare schemes of the Government.

3. The trial court framed two issues "whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of permanent injunction or not and for any other relief". The trial court mainly proceeded based on the documents relatable to house tax receipts and land tax and further, the application submitted by the plaintiff for grant of patta. The notice received from Revenue Inspector, Cholavandhan by the plaintiff is also marked as document. The trial court made a finding that natham poramboke means it is a residence and the

Page 4 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 plaintiff is in possession of the thatched house constructed in the natham poramboke land and except the plaintiff, no other person is in possession of the property. The plaintiff has established the possession and accordingly, the relief of permanent injunction was granted. At the outset, the plaintiff would establish the fact that he constructed the thatched house and is in possession of portion of natham poramboke land. To establish the same, he filed the house tax receipts and the application submitted by him for grant of patta to the competent Government authority.

4. The defendants filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.73 of 2015. The

first appellate court with reference to the issues, considered the grounds raised in the appeal suit and formed an opinion that the plaintiff has encroached portion of the natham poramboke land. The encroached portion of land in S.No.214/7 is measuring 23.6 feet x 10 feet. In respect of the other portion of the lands, the same do not belong to the plaintiff and the patta land adjacent to the natham poramboke land belongs to the brothers of the plaintiff. Therefore, the said patta land is no way connected with the

Page 5 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 natham poramboke land. The findings of the first appellate court reveal that there is an error in the schedule mentioned in the plaint and no steps were taken to rectify the same in the suit schedule. In respect of the Advocate Commissioner's report, viz., Ex.C2, the plaintiff has not raised any

objection. As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the demolished portion in the suit property is situated in the natham poramboke measuring

23.6 feet x 10 feet. However, in the suit schedule, the plaintiff has stated the description of the property as "in Madurai District in Vadipatti Taluk in Chithalangudi Village in S.No.214/7 having an extent of 37 feet on the north south and 22 feet on the east west bounded on the North by East West street; South by House property of Seeni konar; West of vacant house site; and rest by House property of Vellaisamy konar". Therefore, the grama natham poramboke land which is the subject matter for adjudication as well as the description in the plaint are not tallying and the first appellate court has clearly stated that the Advocate Commissioner's report reveals that the demolished portion of the thatched house is situated and measuring 23.6 feet x 10 feet, which is no way connected with the plaint schedule

Page 6 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 mentioned property of the plaintiff. There is no proof to establish that the plaintiff is in occupation of portion of the land in S.No.214/7, north south 37 feet and east west 22 feet. The said description is not tallying with the Advocate Commissioner's report and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Even in the plaint, the description of the property had been erroneously stated by the plaintiff and such errors were not rectified or amended by the plaintiff both before the trial court as well as before the first appellate court.

5. The first appellate court considered the judgment of the Madras

High Court in the case of Sakthivel & another vs. Marimuthu [2014-4- L.W. 796] wherein, the Court said that suit property is grama natham - It does not belong to the Government.

5.1. In the case of K.Illangovan vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore and another [2014-1-L.W. 430], the Madras High Court held that "lands whether are classified as natham poramboke or grama natham, they are only meant to be classified as grama natham alone".

Page 7 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 5.2. Grama natham is the residential portion of a village inhabited by non Brahmins or land reserved as house sites etc. This proposition was laid down in the case of Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk Dharmapurai District vs. V.Swaminathan and others [2004

(3) CTC 270].

5.3. In the case of Krishnamurthy Gounder vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [2002 (3) CTC 221], this Court held that admittedly when the land has been classified as Village Natham, it is obvious that no portion of the land vests with the respondents under Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. However, the first appellate court formed an opinion that these judgments regarding the principles may not have any application with reference to the facts established by the plaintiff. Even the description of the property mentioned in the plaint has been erroneously stated. The pattta land has been included in the description and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

Page 8 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that all the judgments cited supra with reference to the classification of natham poramboke or grama natham land are for the purpose of defining the land and to utilise the same for the purpose to which it was kept in the village panchayats. No doubt, natham poramboke or grama natham lands are no man's land. Question arises, who should be the owner of no man's land. Who can claim and who can claim right in respect of such no man's land. Property right cannot be conferred impliedly. In certain circumstances, the Courts have held that adverse possession can be claimed. The concept of adverse possession has been slowly discouraged by the Courts on account of misuse and abuse by the citizens in respect of the concept of adverse possession. Courts are expected to be slow in granting relief merely based on adverse possession. The other mitigating factors are also to be adjudicated.

7. As far as the natham poramboke and grama natham lands are

concerned, it may not be a Government land. However, the land belongs to

Page 9 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 the village concerned. Once the land belongs to the village concerned, it is to be construed that the natham poramboke or grama natham land belongs to the people of that village. When it belongs to the people of that village, it is not the prerogative of the single citizen to occupy the land without the authority of law. That is the reason why the competent authorities of the Government making assessment with reference to the indigent and

penurious circumstances and assigning such land for residential purposes and granting patta to the persons, who all are residing for many years. Therefore, mere occupation of the land is not sufficient enough to confer any right of property of a person, who is otherwise in occupation of natham poramboke or grama natham lands.

8. Property right is no more a fundamental right under the

Constitution of India. Now property right is a statutory right and subject to the acquisition laws, which all are in force. When the private lands can be acquired for public purpose, question arises why the grama natham and natham poramboke lands cannot be taken away for public purposes, more

Page 10 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 specifically when such land belongs to the people of that village. Therefore, all the earlier judgments regarding the classification of the land and

definitions regarding the natham poramboke and grama natham may not

have any direct implication for the purpose of conferring property right. The property right is to be conferred only in accordance with law. The right of property cannot be conferred merely on the basis that a person is in possession of grama natham or natham poramboke lands. If such a concept is encouraged by the Courts, then every miscreant or greedy men of this Great Nation will be tempted to occupy such grama natham or natham

poramboke lands in the village and take undue advantage of such lands by using the mussel power or the political powers. That exactly is the

complaint of an ordinary citizen in villages. Such grama natham and

natham poramboke lands are abused on account of sudden heap in land

value. Such lands are to be protected for the public interest. No doubt, if such lands are to be assigned by the Government in respect of the persons, who all are residing and in penurious circumstances, then such assignment is to be granted in accordance with the principles of the Constitution of

Page 11 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 India. The principles of equality and social justice being backbone of our Constitution, distribution of such lands at free of cost must be granted equally without causing any discrimination amongst the landless poor

people. Contrarily, it is not as if a person who is capable of encroaching larger portion of grama natham or natham poramboke land can occupy the land and say it is no man's land and I am in possession and therefore, the land belongs to me. This concept is absurd and unconstitutional. All

property rights are now based on the statutes and therefore, even if the subject land falls under the classification of 'grama natham' and 'natham poramboke', assignment is to be properly granted by the Government so as to ensure that such lands are utilized for the benefit of landless poor, who all are indigent persons. Contrarily, assignment cannot be granted in a routine manner.

9. All the judgments relating to classification are of no avail to the plaintiff. Classification and definitions are not disputed. However, the method of assignment and the property right to be conferred is to be decided

Page 12 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 by the Government, who is the authority to regulate the assignments. The land belongs to the village. The village people of that particular village is having a right over such property classified as natham poramboke or grama natham. Thus, possession is to be taken in the interest of the village people and if such lands are necessary for the purpose of public schemes, then such public schemes are to be implemented for the welfare of the public.

Contrarily, an individual cannot be permitted to occupy such lands, which is opposed to public policy. If such practice is permitted, then people will be tempted to seek for a property right merely based on such possession. Unless the possession is fair by way of proper assignment and grant of patta, no person can claim any property right in respect of grama natham or natham poramboke land and it is not as if any person who is capable of encroaching can possess the natham poramboke or grama natham lands,

which is unconstitutional and affecting the common right of the village people and in violation of the principles of equality and social justice.

Page 13 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 10. In the present case, even the description in the plaint regarding the schedule of the property was not established by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not taken any effort to amend the description either before the trial court or before the first appellate court. Thus, the first appellate court formed an opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. The plaintiff has sought for a lesser extent.

11. This apart, the question of law framed by the appellant in the Second Appeal reveals that all relatable to the factual disputes, which were adjudicated both by the trial court and by the first appellate court. One question of law reveals that whether the lower appellate court is right in rejecting the case of the appellant when the appellant claims lesser extent of property as compared to the extent mentioned in the plaint. Though this may not be a substantial question of law, this Court is of the opinion that the plaint description if it is found erroneous then the Courts cannot grant the relief. Description in the suit schedule must tally with the documents or

Page 14 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 otherwise. In the event of errors, sufficient opportunities are contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. If it is not done, Courts cannot grant the relief of permanent injunction. Based on the incorrect description of

property in the plaint schedule, relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted and therefore, the findings in this regard by the first appellate court are in consonance with the established principles of law and there is no perversity or infirmity as such. It is made clear that any person, who is in unlawful possession of grama natham or natham poramboke lands, he

should be evicted by following the due process of law. In the present case, the notice issued by the Revenue Inspector, Cholavandhan was also marked as document before the trial court. Therefore, the authority competent is empowered to proceed further by following the procedure as contemplated.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) By LRs vs. O.V.Narasimha Setty (D) By LRs [C.A.No.6111 of 2009 dated 26.09.2019], referred the judgment of the

Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur

Page 15 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. [C.A.No.7764 of 2014 dated 07.08.2019]. The Larger Bench had held that the plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offence and as a defence, i.e., both as sword and as a shield. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "59. We hold that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due

procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse

possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost

and the possessory owner acquires right, title and

interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the

case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our

opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or

interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the

plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken

of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has

perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a

suit for restoration of possession in case of

dispossession. In case of 1 Civil Appeal No.7764 of

2014, decision dated 07.08.2019 dispossession by

another person by taking law in his hand a possessory

suit can be maintained under Article 64, even before the

ripening of title by way of adverse possession. By

Page 16 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 perfection of title on extinguishment of the owner's title, a person cannot be remediless. In case he has been

dispossessed by the owner after having lost the right by

adverse possession, he can be evicted by the plaintiff by

taking the plea of adverse possession. Similarly, any

other person who might have dispossessed the plaintiff

having perfected title by way of adverse possession can

also be evicted until and unless such other person has

perfected title against such a plaintiff by adverse

possession. Similarly, under other Articles also in case

of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff who has

perfected the title by adverse possession, can sue and

maintain a suit.

60. When we consider the law of adverse

possession as has developed visàvis to property dedicated to public use, courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised. In Such cases, on the land reserved for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are

Page 17 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnamurthy S. Setlur

(supra) categorically held in para 17 that "thus, there can be no manner of dispute that a plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession".

14. In the present case, it is a property which is classified as natham poramboke, which is kept for public usage. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession or otherwise cannot be considered in public interest, as the law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequence in respect of village land or Government land. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also clarified the same in para 60 as stated supra and therefore, the case of the appellant deserves no merit consideration.

Page 18 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 15. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 passed in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai stands confirmed and the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2014 passed in O.S.No.206 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti is set aside. Consequently, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

30.03.2022

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No abr

To

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2.The District Munsif, Vadipatti. 3.The District Collector,

Collectorate,

Madurai District, Madurai.

4.The Tahsildar,

Vadipatti Taluk,

Page 19 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 Madurai District.

Page 20 of 21

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

abr

S.A.(MD) No.233 of 2022

30.03.2022

Page 21 of 21