Madras HC Rejects Son’s Challenge to Notices Over Mother’s Grama Natham Plot, Holding 1905 Act Covers Unauthorised Occupation

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice issued under Section 7 and a notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, concerning Grama Natham land.

He claimed that his mother had been assigned the land and that, after her death, he had applied for transfer of patta as her legal heir.

He argued that Grama Natham land did not vest in the Government and that the authorities therefore lacked jurisdiction under the Act.

The State maintained that the assignment was conditional, that the conditions had been violated, and that the petitioner’s remedy was a statutory appeal under Section 10.

The petitioner had not filed that appeal.

The Court applied Sections 6, 7 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, concerning eviction proceedings and the statutory appeal remedy.

It relied on Revenue Standing Orders 21(1) and 26(1), treating grants of Grama Natham land as subject to assignment conditions and unauthorised occupation of Government land as actionable under the Act.

The Court also relied on the Full Bench decisions in Madathapu Ramaya v. Secretary of State for India in Council and Taluk Board, Dindigul v. Venkatarama Ayyar, as well as Selvakumar v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, for the proposition that the Government could regulate Grama Natham land.

It further referred to S. Anbananthan v. District Collector, Perambalur and other decisions on occupation of such land.

The Court considered the petitioner’s claimed status as the legal heir of the original assignee but held that a conditional Government assignment did not become hereditary property; the authorities could examine the heirs’ eligibility and compliance with the assignment conditions.

It rejected the jurisdictional challenge, reasoning from the Revenue Standing Orders and the cited precedents that Grama Natham land could be regulated by the Government and unauthorised occupation addressed under the 1905 Act.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not used the statutory appeal under Section 10, which it regarded as the appropriate remedy against the authority’s decision.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.