A.MASILAMANI vs The District collector
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WP.No.45147 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012617872026}
and
WMP.No.50671 of 2026
A.Masilamani
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Erode,
Erode District.
2. The Revenue Tahsildar,
Nambiyur Taluk Office,
Erode District
3. The Land Revenue Inspector,
Vemandampalayam A-Village,
Nambiyur Taluk,
Erode District.
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for entire records
__________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
nd
pertaining to the notice issued by the 2 respondent dated 15.10.2026
under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and
rd
the notice issued by the 3 respondent dated 28.9.2026 under Section 7
of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 respectively and quash
the same as illegal without jurisdiction and consequentially direct the
respondents to transfer patta in the name of legal heirs of Kaliammal by
considering representation dated 15.10.2026.
For Petitioner: Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents: Mr.B.Sivakollappan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)
The lis on hand has been instituted challenging the show cause
notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment
Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred as “the Act, 1905) and the final notice
issued under Section 6 of the Act,1905.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel would contend that the Tahsildar has failed to
consider the explanation given by the petitioner in response to the show
cause notice issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1905. The petitioner’s
mother was the assignee of the Grama Natham land and after demise of
__________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
the mother of the petitioner, he is in occupation of the assigned land and
he made an application to assign the said land in his favour as a legal
heir. During the pendency of the application, enforcement action has
been initiated under the provisions of the Act, 1905. The petitioner
would contend that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction since the subject
land is an assigned land, more so, it is a Grama Natham land not vests
with the Government and thus, the occupant has got a right to possess
the land. Once the Government is not the owner of the Grama Natham
lands, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to invoke Act, 1905.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.B.Sivakollappan,
would oppose by stating that the Grama Natham lands can be regulated
by the Government under Revenue Standing Orders (RSO) 21 and 26.
The Grama Natham lands vest with the Government and to be utilised
for public purposes or to be assigned for landless poor persons for
dwelling purposes. The extent of land to be assigned i.e. 3 cents also
contemplated under the Revenue Standing Orders. When the Revenue
Standing Order empowers the Government to regulate Grama Natham
lands and utilise the same for public purpose or assign the same in
__________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
favour of landless poor persons for dwelling purposes, the contention of
the petitioner that the Government has no powers is incorrect. The
learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that even
as per the petitioner, assignment was granted in the name of the mother
of the petitioner, it is only a conditional patta and therefore, the assignee
complied with the conditions or not is also the subject matter to be
enquired into and therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily prefer an
appeal under Section 10 of the Act, 1905.
4.This Court considered the submissions made between the
parties to the present writ petition.
5.The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Government
land was assigned in favour of the mother of the petitioner and after
demise of the mother, the petitioner as a legal heir submitted an
application for change of patta. In this context, Grama Natham lands are
to be assigned in favour of the landless poor persons to an extent of 3
cents maximum. If the legal heirs of the original assignee are found to
be an ineligible, such legal heirs may not be entitled to get transfer of
__________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
Patta. Assignment of Government land on condition cannot be
converted for succession to claim as a hereditary property. It is a
Government land and the assignment is granted on terms and
conditions as stipulated under the Revenue Standing Orders. On the
demise of the original assignee, the authorities on enquiry if found that
the legal heirs are not eligible for assignment of Government land at free
of costs, then such lands can be assigned in favour of any other eligible
poor persons by following the procedures as contemplated under the
Revenue Standing Orders. In the present case, the assignee had
violated the conditions.
6.Secondly, the petitioner raised a ground that Grama Natham
lands does not vest with the Government and the occupant is entitled for
the Grama Natham land. Therefore, the Government has no jurisdiction
to invoke the provisions under the Act, 1905. The issue raised is no
more res integra.
7.This Court has elaborately considered the issues relating to
Grama Natham lands in the following cases:
__________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
1) Dr.V.Kalanidhi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By
Principal Secretary to Government, Planning
1
Development and Special Initiatives Department
2) S.Anbananthan vs. The District Collector,
2
Perambalur
3
3) The Tahsildar, Sankarapuram vs. T.Elumalai
4) K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar vs. The Secretary,
4
Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue
5) Selvakumar vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to
5
Government
8.In the case of S.Anbananthan (cited supra), the Division Bench
of this Court has elaborately considered the earlier Division Bench
judgments and its applicability in respect of the Grama Natham lands
occupied by the individuals without any authority of law. Grama Natham
lands may be occupied only under the authority of law and mere
occupation of Grama Natham lands would not confer any ownership to
an individual. If such rights are conferred, it would result in lawlessness
1
2023 MHC 4182
2
2024 MHC 1682
3
2025 MHC 1238
4
2024 MHC 1553
5
2026 MHC 1572
__________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
in the society. Persons with political and muscle power will occupy the
Grama Natham lands and will claim that he has vested right and the
Government has no power to invoke the Act, 1905.
9.Generally lands vest with the Government and individuals are
owning lands only under the authority of law. That being the basic
concept of owning property, the Grama Natham lands vest with the
Government and to be regulated in terms of the Revenue Standing
Orders. This Court passed several orders following the earlier Division
Bench judgments and all those Division Bench judgments were
discussed in the case of S.Anbananthan (cited supra) and
distinguished.
__________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
10.Subsequently, in the case of Selvakumar (cited supra), again
this Court considered the same issue and relied on two Full Bench
judgments of this Court delivered in the cases of Madathapu Ramaya
6
vs. The Secretary of State for India in Council and in the case of the
7
Taluk Board, Dindigul vs. Venkatarama Ayyar and others . Two
different Full Benches in the above said cases held that the Government
has got powers to regulate Grama Natham lands.
11.The petitioner would rely on the recent Full Bench judgment in
the case of Kaman @ Kamatchi vs. The District Collector and others
in W.P.(MD).Nos.19720 of 2017 etc., batch dated 06.03.2026 .
Pertinently, one Hon’ble Judge authored a dissenting judgment and
therefore, the two Full Bench judgments in the cases of Madathapu
Ramaya and Venkatarama Ayyar continue to be the binding precedent
as per the ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
8
vs. Pranay Sethi .
6
ILR 1904 (27) Mad 386
7
1923 (18) LW 366
8
2017 (16) SCC 680
__________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
12.Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India reads as under:
“39.Certain principles of policy to be followed by
the State.—The State shall, in particular, direct its policy
towards securing—
(a) …………………………
(b) that the ownership and control of the material
resources of the community are so distributed as best to
subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system
does not result in the concentration of wealth and means
of production to the common detriment.”
13.In respect of Grama Natham Lands, the provisions of the 1905
Act would apply in view of the terms and conditions stipulated under
Revenue Standing Orders 21(1) read with 26(1), which reads as under:
“ RSO 21(1)
A General (i) Scale of grant :- Portions of grama natham or
village site at the disposal of Government, not being land
required for the common use of the villagers, may be
granted for building purposes to bonafide applicants. The
maximum extent that could be assigned to any applicant
for building houses is 1.25 ares. But the Tahsildars have
__________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
discretion to grant a smaller extent in special
circumstances, if, for instance the grant of an extent of
1.25 ares would encroach too much upon the area
available for future assignments or the extent encroached
upon already is less than 1.25 ares. In cases, where the
extent is more than 1.25 ares and where it cannot
conveniently be sub-divided for grant to another person
assignment may be ordered under this R.S.O on collection
of market value as per the norms fixed by the Government,
from time to time. The assignment in all cases shall be
subject to the conditions of the orders of the assignment
referred to in paragraph 7 below.
Note: - In this Standing Order, the designation Tahsildar
includes Special Tahsildar employed for assignment work.
In assigning lands for house sites care should be taken to
see that land is not granted to persons already possessing
enough land for their reasonable requirements and that
preference is given to those who own no house site and
whose family income does not exceed Rs.12,000/- per
annum.
G.O.Ms.No.281. Rev.dt 16.3.95 People belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are to be given
priority in assigning house sites.
__________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
RSO 26(1)
"26. Unauthorised occupation of Government Land:
1.Lands to which Act III of 1905 applies:-
Act III of 1905 lays down the procedure to be followed in
dealing with unauthorised occupation of lands, which are
the property of Government. The term “occupation” must
be taken to have the meaning attached to it in common
parlance; there must be an intention to appropriate land
either temporarily or permanently in order to constitute
occupation. For example, when a man dumps earth or
rubbish on Government land even though he has no
intention of utilizing it afterwards, he “takes possession” of
the land for the purpose of depositing his earth or rubbish
on it. A man who puts a dam across a stream, digs a
channel across a path “takes possession” of that portion of
the bed of the stream or the path for his own purposes
even if only temporarily. The Act does not however, cover
the case of prickly-pear spreading from private land to
Government land. The phrase “lands which are the
property of Government” as defined in Section 2of the Act,
includes public roads, streets, lands and paths, vesting in a
local body, viz., village panchayat / town panchayat or
municipality and railway lands whether classed as
permanent or temporary, but does not apply to lands
claimed by right of escheat, resumption or reversion, which
__________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
have not been reduced to the possession of Government.
(section 16) Encroachment of any Government land is
otherwise a trespass and the encroacher is therefore liable
for criminal action also."
14.Pertinently, the Revenue Standing Orders were earlier not
considered by the Division Benches of this Court as well as the learned
Single Judges of this Court. Therefore, this Court has distinguished the
earlier judgments of this Court in the case of S.Anbananthan and the
Tahsildar, Sankarapuram (cited supra).
15.The Revenue Standing Orders will have the force of law and
further contemplates that the occupants of Grama Natham lands without
authority of law are to be treated as encroachers and the Government is
empowered to evict those encroachers by following the procedures as
contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1905.
16.In the present case, the petitioner has not preferred any
statutory appeal as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, 1905.
Exhausting the efficacious alternate remedy contemplated under the Act,
__________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
1905 is of paramount importance. The original authority, namely,
Tahsildar relied on the revenue documents and considering the
violations against conditional patta not considered the case of the
petitioner for grant of transfer of patta. Thus, the challenge made
against the notices are not entertainable.
17.Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.)
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
Note : The Registry is directed to return the original
impugned order to the learned counsel on record.
__________
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
To
1. The District Collector,
Erode,
Erode District.
2. The Revenue Tahsildar,
Nambiyur Taluk Office,
Erode District
3. The Land Revenue Inspector,
Vemandampalayam A-Village,
Nambiyur Taluk,
Erode District.
__________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4471
WP.No.45147 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
cse
WP.No.45147 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )