Landowners are ineligible for free assignment of Grama Natham lands reserved for the landless poor.

The petitioner, E. Sundara Murthy, occupied land classified as "grama natham" in Vasudevan Pattu Village and sought an assignment patta

The revenue authorities, treating the petitioner as an encroacher, issued notices under Section 7 and Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905

The petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 10 was rejected by the District Collector via an order dated 10.07.2023, which is the subject of this challenge

An impleaded respondent (R5) opposed the petition, alleging that the petitioner’s encroachment obstructed the only pathway to her property

A status report filed by the District Collector revealed that the petitioner and his family already possessed eleven distinct parcels of land, including wet, dry, and grama natham classifications

Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 21, which empowers the government to regulate "grama natham" lands and stipulates that such lands are intended for dwelling houses to be assigned specifically to landless poor persons to protect their livelihood

The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 (specifically Sections 6, 7, and 10), which provides the procedural framework for the identification and eviction of encroachers on government-regulated lands

The court reasoned that while grama natham lands are designated for residential use, they are not open for appropriation by wealthy individuals.

Under RSO 21, the primary eligibility criterion for a free house site patta is being "landless poor"

By examining the District Collector’s status report, the court found that the petitioner was a "landlord" owning an extensive array of properties, including multiple agricultural tracts and existing grama natham sites

the petitioner failed the threshold of eligibility for assignment

The court also noted that the land in question was part of a subdivided cart track intended for 12 landless persons, and the petitioner’s occupation caused an illegal obstruction to the ingress and egress of the neighboring property owner (R5)

Since the petitioner was ineligible for the benefit of the government scheme, the court held that the revenue authorities acted within their jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings

The court upheld the District Collector's order and directed the authorities to continue the enforcement action and remove the encroachments as expeditiously as possible

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed