Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction to Evict Occupants from Natham Land.

The petitioner occupied land in Survey No. 840/39, Kottanatham Village, which he claimed was classified as Adi Dravidar Natham.

After he sought patta, the authorities issued a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and subsequently an eviction notice dated 12 June 2024.

The petitioner challenged that notice and sought protection from eviction pending consideration of his patta representations.

The State submitted that no such classification appeared in the revenue records, but accepted that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings for alleged encroachment on Grama Natham land.

Whether the revenue authorities could sustain eviction proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the land claimed to be Natham

Whether the petitioner’s remedy, if a party was aggrieved by his occupation, lay before the competent Civil Court

Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was the statutory basis cited for the notice issued to the petitioner.

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 pursue a remedy before the competent Civil Court.

The Court considered the State’s submission that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to evict an alleged encroacher from Grama Natham land, together with the Full Bench ruling in Kaman @ Kamatchi.

On that basis, it held that the challenged eviction proceedings could not be sustained, notwithstanding the State’s assertion that the revenue records did not show the claimed Adi Dravidar Natham classification.

The writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.