Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act cannot be invoked against Natham land.

The petitioner sought patta for land in Survey No. 448/40, classified as “Sarkar Natham,” at A. Punavasal Village.

His request had been rejected by the Tahsildar and District Collector on the ground that he owned other property and was therefore not a landless poor person.

Following earlier writ proceedings and a direction to pursue an appeal before the District Collector, the petitioner challenged the Collector’s rejection order dated 13 September 2024.

The proceedings also concerned Survey No. 448/48, which was classified as a public pathway (“Pathai”); the petitioner’s patta claim was confined to Survey No. 448/40.

Whether the Court should interfere with the rejection of the petitioner’s patta claim for Survey No. 448/40, where the authorities found that he was not a landless poor person.

Whether the authorities had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act in respect of land classified as Natham.

Whether the petitioner could continue to occupy Survey No. 448/48, classified as a public pathway.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Kaman @ Kamatchi v. The District Collector, Dindigul District, 2026 (2) CTC 257, for the rule that the authorities have no jurisdiction to invoke Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act in respect of land classified as Natham.

It also proceeded on the basis that a public pathway cannot be occupied or encroached upon by an individual and cannot be assigned for individual use.

The Court did not disturb the authorities’ finding that the petitioner was not eligible for patta as a landless poor person because he owned other property.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the concurrent rejection of the patta claim for Survey No. 448/40, as the authorities had rejected it on the ground that the petitioner owned other properties.

However, because that land was classified as Natham, the Court held that Section 6 proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act could not be invoked against it, applying the Full Bench ruling in Kaman @ Kamatchi.

As Survey No. 448/48 was classified as a pathway for public use, the petitioner had no right to remain in occupation of it.

The petitioner was directed to vacate and hand over Survey No. 448/48 to the competent authority for use as a public pathway.

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