Can the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 be invoked in respect of Grama Natham lands that are already occupied?

The intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the writ Court dated 02.04.2025 in W.P.No.9246 of 2024, whereby the order of the second appellant dated 07.03.2024 was quashed and liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate appropriate land acquisition proceedings, if the subject properties are required for the Metro Rail Project.

The relevant facts to be noted in the appeal are as under: 2.1. The first and second respondents/writ petitioners claimed ownership of the subject properties in R.S.Nos.26 and 27, Block No.12, Reddy Street, Villivakkam, Chennai. The properties were classified as Grama Natham and originally vested with one Munisamy Reddiar. The properties were sold through a Sale Deed dated 31.10.1914 in favour of one Subburaya Chettiar and two others. 2.2. Thereafter, the properties were inherited by their legal heirs and by a Partition Deed dated 18.01.1984, registered as document No. 232/1984 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, the properties were partitioned between the legal heirs, in which, the above said properties were allotted to one N.M.Ramalingam, father of the first respondent. 2.3. In respect of the proposed Metro Rail Project, the officials of the first appellant/Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) had called for a meeting on 21.01.2021, during which, respondents 1 and 2 submitted their objections. However, G.O.Ms.No.267 Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Department, dated 09.11.2021 (in short “G.O.267”) was issued, according administrative sanction for transfer of properties comprised in Block No.12, Survey Nos.1 and 27 and Block No.56, Survey No.147, transferring 68 sq. mtrs. of land on permanent basis and 491 sq.mtrs. on temporary basis, in favour of CMRL. 2.4. The respondents 1 and 2 along with others had filed W.P.No.25780 of 2021 seeking to forbear the authorities from acquiring their properties without resorting to land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Metro Rail Project. By order dated 13.12.2021, the said writ petition was disposed of, restraining the authorities from acquiring the subject properties except by due process of law. 2.5. Thereafter, notice was issued by the second appellant, for which, detailed objections were submitted by the first respondent on 27.12.2023. By the impugned proceedings dated 07.03.2024, the second appellant rejected the claim of ownership of the private respondents, which came to be assailed in the writ petition in W.P.No.9246 of 2024. 2.6. The writ Court holding that the subject properties are Grama Natham lands and since the title is traced from the year 1914, by placing reliance on a decision in the case of N.S.Krishnamoorthi and Others Vs The District Collector, Krishnagiri and Others (W.P.No.4936 of 2025 etc. cases decided on 26.03.2025) held that the occupied Grama Natham lands cannot be regarded as Government Poramboke lands and the right acquired by the occupants cannot be deprived by classifying the lands as Poramboke lands. The writ Court, ultimately, had allowed the writ petition setting aside the communication of the second appellant, granting liberty to the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Aggrieved, CMRL/appellants have preferred the writ appeal.

Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that when the subject properties are classified as Sarkar (Government) Natham Poramboke in the Town Survey Land Register, the authority had rightly rejected the claim of ownership of writ petitioners, as they are bound to proceed only based on the entries available in the revenue records. 3.1. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the State has also issued G.O.267, according administrative sanction and approval for transfer of the Government Natham Poramboke lands in favour of CMRL and if at all respondents 1 and 2 have any right and claim over the subject properties, it is for them to establish their right and title before the appropriate civil Court. 3.2. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the order of the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision in N.S.Krishnamoorthi (referred supra) is erroneous, in view of a Division Bench decision in the case of S.Anbanathan vs The District Collector, Peramabalur and Others [(2024) 4 LW 431], wherein it was declared that the ratio laid down in N.S.Krishnamoorthi (referred supra) has denuded its status as a binding precedent. The learned Single Judge ought not to have ventured into deciding the civil rights of the parties by declaring the title in holding that the occupants have right and, in any event, Natham Poramboke lands cannot be construed as private properties and the lands always vest with the Government.

Per contra, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, contended that the subject properties were purchased by their predecessors as early as in the year 1914. He further submitted that the property was partitioned among the legal heirs in 1984, after which respondents 1 and 2 constructed buildings and they and their predecessors had remained in continuous enjoyment for more than a century. In view of several settled decisions of this Court, occupied Grama Natham lands never vest with the State and it absolutely belongs to the occupant. 4.1. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when already this Court had restrained the authorities from taking over the full lands except by acquisition, in fact after considering the administrative approval granted by the State through G.O.267 which has become final, the order of the second appellant holding that respondents 1 and 2 cannot be recognised as owners is unsustainable and the same was rightly set aside by the writ Court. 4.2. He further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the authorities had calculated the compensation for the land and building at Rs.3,72,29,124/-, but respondents 1 and 2 were not willing to receive the same as it was very meagre compared to the market value. By placing reliance on a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nallasivam and Another vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others [(2026) 2 CTC 257], he submitted that the Full Bench had over ruled the decision of the Division Bench in S.Anbanathan (referred supra) and it was held that those who already inhabit Grama Natham lands are the absolute owners and hold valid title to the property. As such, if at all the lands are required for the proposed Metro Rail Project, it is for the authorities to resort to appropriate acquisition proceedings and pay adequate compensation, as has been rightly decided by the writ Court and such finding warrants no interference.

Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

The subject properties in R.S.No’s.26 and 27, Block No.12, Reddy Street, Villivakkam, Chennai were classified as Grama Natham. Through a Sale Deed dated 31.10.1914, the properties were purchased by one Subburaya Chettiar and two others. Subsequently, the legal heirs inherited the properties and by a registered Partition Deed dated 18.01.1984, they partitioned the properties, in which, the subject properties in R.S.Nos.26 and 27 were allotted to one N.M.Ramalingam, father of the first respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 had constructed buildings and are in continuous enjoyment.

CMRL proceeded with phase-II of the Metro Rail Project. For the purpose of construction of Villivakkam Metro Station, the subject properties were inspected and G.O.267 was issued, according sanction for transfer of the property in Survey Nos.1 and 27 in Block No.12 and Survey No.147 in Block No.56, measuring an extent of 68 sq.mtrs. permanently and 491 sq.mtrs. temporarily to CMRL.

Respondents 1 and 2 and others filed W.P.No.25780 of 2021 to forbear the authorities from taking over the property for construction of Metro Rail Project without resorting to the land acquisition proceedings. After considering G.O.267, which accorded sanction for transfer of lands, the writ Court by an order dated 13.12.2021, disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:

The order dated 13.12.2021 was not challenged and became final. However, without resorting to land acquisition proceedings to implement the project, the second appellant issued a notice to proceed with the project. The first respondent submitted his reply putting forth his objections. The second appellant, by proceedings dated 07.03.2024, in Rc.No.7/LC-13/CMRL/2022, issued the following communication:

In the challenge made, the learned Judge observed from the records that the title to the subject properties, which are Grama Natham lands, is traced from the year 1914 onwards. Further, though the authorities have assessed the total value of the subject properties, including superstructure, at Rs.3,72,29,124/-, respondents 1 and 2 were not willing to receive the compensation as it is meagre compared to market value. The learned Judge further held that the right acquired by the occupants cannot be deprived by classifying the lands as Poramboke lands and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the proceedings dated 07.03.2024, granting liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate land acquisition proceedings. The writ Court placing reliance on the decision in N.S.Krishnamoorthi (referred supra), concluded that occupied Grama Natham lands cannot be regarded as Government Poramboke lands.

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants assailed the decision of the writ Court on the ground that since the law laid down in the decision in N.S.Krishnamoorthi (referred supra) has been declared as denuded by the Division Bench decision in S.Anbanathan (referred supra), the impugned order is unsustainable.

At this juncture, it is to be noted that in view of the conflicting decisions that have been rendered on the issue whether Grama Natham lands vest with the Government or do not vest with the Government, the issue was referred to a Full Bench of this Court in Nallasivam (referred supra). The point for reference was to determine whether occupied Grama Natham land vests with the Government and whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can be invoked against such occupied lands.

The Full Bench overruled the decision in S.Anbanathan (referred supra) by holding that those who are already in inhabitation of Grama Natham are the absolute owners and answered the reference that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, cannot be invoked in respect of occupied Grama Natham lands and that the occupied Grama Natham lands do not vest with the Government. Relevant portion from the said decision reads as under:

The Full Bench has extensively considered a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.A.V. Kovil Annayya Charities vs. The District Collector, Tiruvallur and Others [(2024) 3 CTC 337]. In the said decision also, the lands were required for implementation of the Metro Rail Project and since in the revenue records the lands were classified as Sarkar Grama Natham Poramboke, proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Division Bench held that merely because the Grama Natham land is described as Poramboke in the Resettlement Register, that, by itself, will not establish the title of the Government to the land in question.

The Division Bench in Kovil Annayya Charities (referred supra), also considered another decision in T.S.Ravi and Another Vs The District Collector, Thiruvallur District (W.P.Nos.26234 & 26237 of 2018 decided on 11.10.2018), arising out of the requirement of CMRL, where the commercial use of the land was also considered and it was held that merely because a portion of the land was used for commercial exploitation, that, by itself, cannot confer title on the Government.

Further, in Kovil Annayya Charities (referred supra), the Division Bench also observed that the Government itself had framed a Natham Settlement Scheme under which pattas were granted to a majority of Grama Natham occupants. The Court held that merely because certain persons were left out and their names were not in the Natham Adangal prepared, that by itself will not be a conclusive proof that the land is an “unoccupied natham" or intended for a “public purpose”. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below: “17. Again in respect of the very same CMRL requirement, when petitioners in Gramanatham lands were sought to be evicted under the Act, in T.S.Ravi's case (stated supra), the Division Bench considered the issue in detail and once again reiterated legal position. Apart from the legal position relating to the Gramanatham lands that the Government is not the paramount owner, the Division Bench also considered the commercial use of the land and held that merely because a portion of the land in that case was used for commercial exploitation, that by itself will not confer title on the Government. The Division Bench took notice of the fact that those villages, in which the settlements were made, now become big cities, as such, the residential portions, without any due course of time, have become areas of carrying commercial activities and that will not vest title in the Government. …… 21. It would be clear that the Gramanatham or Natham Poramboke can be classified into three types. Firstly, the Natham which are inhabited by the villagers by putting up their house or being their pilakadai or kollai etc., which is their absolute property and the Government does not have any right, title or interest in the same. The second portion of the Gramanatham or those portions which may be used for communal purposes, such as street, thrashing floors etc. Once they are used for communal purposes, by virtue of Section 2 of the Act, they become the Government interest lands and as such, have to be termed as the other types of Poramboke, in which, no individuals can claim any title and any encroachment can be removed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The third type is the unoccupied portion of the Gramanatham land, in which the right is vested with the Government to regulate its occupation. The Government has the right to assign the unoccupied portion by ensuring the condition of residence eligibility etc., and it is only in this context, the Revenue Standing Orders, enabling the Government to impose conditions, assign only 3 cents lies. 22. In the above back ground, the Government of Tamil Nadu made an endeavour to bring clarity in respect of all the three types of Gramanatham by framing a scheme for assessment and collection of land revenue from the owners of Gramanatham property which is known as Natham Settlement Scheme in G.O. Ms. No.869, Commercial Taxes and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 30.09.2023, under which the persons who are already in occupation were sought to be recognised by grant of ‘Thoraya Patta’ or ‘Tentative Patta’. Though a majority of the occupants of natham have approached the respondents or participated in the Natham Survey and obtained the Natham Thoraya Patta and are paying tax, it is common knowledge that it is not a complete or exhaustive exercise as many of the owners did not participate to avoid assessment and payment of tax. Thus, merely because, the concerned occupant’s name is not reflected in the Natham Adangal, prepared in this regard, the same is not a conclusive proof that it is an unoccupied Natham or a public purpose Poramboke. However, the fact that remains that all the occupants”

In the instant case, as referred above, the subject properties were purchased by one Subburaya Chettiar and two others by way of a Sale Deed dated 31.10.1914 and subsequently partitioned among the legal heirs through a registered Partition Deed dated 18.01.1984. In the partition, the subject properties were allotted to the first respondent’s father, N.M.Ramalingam, and respondents 1 and 2 are in occupation of this Grama Natham properties for over a century.

The second appellant relying on the computerized extract from the Permanent Land Register of R.S.Nos.26 and 27 of Villivakkam, observed that the land is classified as Sarkar Natham Poramboke with no entry in adangal column and, therefore, concluded that respondents 1 and 2 cannot be considered as owners of the land. From the documents filed, it is to be noted that ‘Thoraya Patta’ was issued in patta No.105 in the name of the father of the first respondent, N.M.Ramalingam, for R.S.No.26, old Survey No.11A/7B2A Part, measuring 0.03.49.0 hectares of assessed Natham plot. Another ‘Thoraya patta’ No.106 for R.S.No.27, old survey No.11A/7B2A Part, measuring 0.03.12.5 hectares of assessed Natham plot was issued in the name of several persons, including N.C.Somasundaram.

Though the thoraya patta or temporary/rough patta is issued under the “Natham Nilavari Thittam”, i.e., Natham Land Tax Scheme, only for the purpose of levying tax which would not confer title, the non-issuance of regular patta subsequently will not confer title on the Government as held in T.S. Ravi’s case (referred supra), taking away the right available to the occupants over the property. However, in the impugned communication, the second appellant had observed that since the ground rent rough patta issued in respect of the land parcel in Block No.12, T.S.Nos.26 and 27, Villivakkam Village, of the then Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk is not reflected in the computerized Permanent Land Register, respondents 1 and 2 cannot be recognized as the owners.

The subject properties are admittedly Grama Natham lands which have been in the occupation of respondents 1 and 2 and their predecessors for over 100 years by constructing buildings. The fact remains that natham thoraya pattas were already issued in respect of the subject properties by the revenue authorities and the mere non-reflection of the same in the computerized Permanent Land Register subsequently, which were carried out by the authorities, cannot take away their right over the property.

It is to be noted that the order passed in the earlier writ petition forbearing the authorities from acquiring the subject properties without resorting to acquisition proceedings, is not challenged till date. Further, the findings and the liberty granted by the writ Court in the impugned order to initiate land acquisition proceedings, has not been assailed by the third respondent, who is the Revenue head of the District. In the absence of any challenge to the same by the Revenue department, the appellants cannot sustain the appeal in respect of acquiring the lands for the project.

The CMRL, by ignoring the registered documents submitted and the natham thoraya patta issued, which establish that respondents 1 and 2 and their predecessors have been in enjoyment of the subject properties for over a century, and placing reliance on the computerized entry in the Permanent Land Register, cannot deny the right of the occupants of the land. It is not in dispute that respondents 1 and 2 are at present in occupation of the property by constructing a building. In fact, CMRL had assessed the value of the land and superstructure, but the first respondent refused to accept the value fixed before the writ Court.

The rights accrued to the occupants through registered documents for over a century and pattas issued, cannot be simply taken away by denying compensation. In such circumstances, the writ Court rightly interfered with the proceedings and granted liberty to acquire the subject properties by initiating appropriate land acquisition proceedings. However, it is made clear that the fixing of compensation for the property and disbursal thereof will be in accordance to the provisions of the relevant acquisition laws.

We see no error or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 01.06.2026