Madras High Court: Revenue officials cannot evict occupants from Grama Natham land under the Land Encroachment Act

The petitioner occupied land classified as “Grama Natham.”

The Tahsildar issued an eviction notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

The petitioner appealed under Section 10, but the District Collector upheld the eviction proceedings.

She then sought certiorari to quash the Collector’s order, arguing that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction over Grama Natham land.

The State’s counsel acknowledged that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings for an alleged encroachment on Grama Natham land.

1. Whether revenue authorities may initiate eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, against an occupant of land classified as Grama Natham.

2. Whether the District Collector’s order confirming the eviction proceedings could be sustained.

Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, provides for removal of unauthorised occupation, and Section 10 provides an appeal against an order under the Act.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Kaman @ Kamatchi v. The District Collector, Dindigul District, 2026 (2) CTC 257, which held that revenue authorities have no power to initiate eviction proceedings in respect of land classified as Natham; an aggrieved party may seek relief before the competent Civil Court.

The Court further stated that any encroachment requiring removal must be dealt with by the competent local authority, not the revenue authorities.

The Court applied the Full Bench ruling to the land’s Grama Natham classification and the State’s concession that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings in such cases.

It therefore concluded that the Collector’s order confirming the eviction proceedings could not stand.

The Court left disputes between aggrieved parties to be pursued before the competent Civil Court and reserved any lawful removal action to the competent local authority.

It left the parties at liberty to pursue remedies before the competent Civil Court and granted the competent local authority liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.