JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.8.2007 passed in W.P. No. 21930 of 2007. 2. The petitioner in the said writ petition is the first respondent herein and the respondents therein are the appellants. Respondents 2 and 3 have been impleaded as party respondents. The writ petition was filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent therein dated 17.4.2007 rejecting the request of the writ petitioner seeking building permit regarding the construction proposal of stilt plus four floors consisting of 256 dwelling units at Door No. 15, Reddy Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai, Old S. Nos. 72/2A, 79/1, 99/1 A, 99/3, T.S. No. 93, Block No. 31, Virugambakkam village; to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent therein to issue building permit forthwith to the writ petitioner, in the light of the planning permit dated 18.7.2006 issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The property comprised in Old S. Nos. 72/2A, 79/1, 99/1 A, 99/3 in T.S. No. 93, Block No. 31, Virugambakkam Village is owned by the first respondent herein by virtue of the Power of Attorney Deed dated 14.12.2000 executed by South India Corporation Agencies Limited in his favour. South India Corporation Agencies Limited and the first respondent entered into a joint venture for developing the said property into group development consisting of stilt plus four floors of residential dwelling units. The first respondent applied to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 30.8.2005 seeking planning permission. On payment of the necessary fees and charges to the CMDA, planning permission was granted to the first respondent on 18.7.2006 for construction of stilt plus four floors in nine blocks. The said planning permission was forwarded to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, for granting building permit. However, the Commissioner viz., the second appellant herein, by order dated 17.4.2007, rejected the application submitted by the first respondent seeking building permit stating that Old Survey No. 99/3 has been classified as “Gramanatham” and therefore it is not possible to grant building permit in respect of Old Survey No. 99/3. The second appellant also directed the first respondent herein to re-submit the proposal for construction, excluding Old Survey No. 99/3. 4. Challenging the said order, the first respondent filed the above writ petition. 5. The second appellant also directed the first respondent herein to re-submit the proposal for construction, excluding Old Survey No. 99/3. 4. Challenging the said order, the first respondent filed the above writ petition. 5. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the first respondent submitted the application seeking building permit by including the Gramanatham land. Unless correct particulars are furnished, the first respondent is not entitled to get building permit on the basis of the planning permission issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 18.7.2006. The planning permission issued by the CMDA is only provisional and the first respondent has been imposed with a condition that he should obtain permission from the Corporation. Patta was issued to the first respondent erroneously and the appellants have sent a letter to the Collector concerned to cancel the said patta. The first respondent has constructed the building without obtaining permission from the appellants and therefore a notice had already been issued to him under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1990 for putting up unauthorised construction. The appellants, being public servants, are entitled to protect the properties belonging to the Government and the first respondent cannot claim ownership of the properly, which is classified as Gramanatham. Since the order under challenge had been passed without considering the above materials, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority issued the planning permission on 18.7.2006 itself. However, the appellants rejected the request of the first respondent seeking building permit after a lapse of nearly nine months only on the ground that a part of the property comprised in S. No. 99/3 is classified as Gramanatham. The patta issued in respect of the property in question stands in the name of South India Corporation Agencies Limited. The appellants did not produce any material to show that the property comprised in S. No. 99/3 is classified as Gramanathan. In the absence of the same, the appellants ought not to have passed the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 refusing to grant building permit. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with in any manner. The appellants did not produce any material to show that the property comprised in S. No. 99/3 is classified as Gramanathan. In the absence of the same, the appellants ought not to have passed the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 refusing to grant building permit. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with in any manner. In support of the above submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court the following judgments: (1) Rangaraja Iyengar v. Achi Kannu Ammal 1972 2 LW 767 (2) C.V. Subbayya v. P. Anjayya AIR 1972 SC 1421 : (1972) 1 SCC 521 ; (3) Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Government MPs of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) CTC 221 : LNIND 2002 Mad 450 ; (4) The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V. Swaminathan 2004 (3) CTC 270 : (2004) 2 MLJ 708 ; and (5) Ellammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 MLJ 1113 . 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 9. It is no doubt true that by virtue of the Power of Attorney Deed dated 14.12.2000 executed by South India Corporation Agencies Limited, the first respondent came to be appointed as the power agent in respect of the property comprised in Old S. Nos. 72/2A, 79/1, 99/1 A, 99/3 in T.S. No. 93, Block No. 31, Virugambakkam Village. The first respondent also entered into a joint venture with South India Corporation Agencies Limited for developing the said property into group development consisting of stilt plus four floors of residential dwelling units. The first respondent applied to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 30.8.2005 seeking planning permission. On 18.7.2006, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority issued planning permit for construction of stilt plus four floors in nine blocks in the said property and the same was forwarded to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, for issuing building permit. The first respondent sent a representation dated 2.11.2006 to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai seeking building permit. He also sent a representation dated 15.12.2006 to the Commissioner to pass orders on the representation dated 20.7.2006 on merits, pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P. No. 46497 of 2006. The first respondent sent a representation dated 2.11.2006 to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai seeking building permit. He also sent a representation dated 15.12.2006 to the Commissioner to pass orders on the representation dated 20.7.2006 on merits, pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P. No. 46497 of 2006. On 8.1.2007, the Commissioner addressed a letter to the Collector, Chennai District, stating that the land comprised in T.S. No. 93 of Block No. 31, Virugambakkam Village includes a part of Gramanatham land bearing Old S. No. 99/3 of the said village and that, as Gramanatham land belongs to Government Poramboke category, possession may be taken back. On 13.3.2007 also, the first respondent addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, seeking to issue building permit. The first respondent also filed W.P. No. 9835 of 2007 before this Court seeking for a declaration that building permit shall be deemed to have been issued by the Corporation of Chennai for putting up the said construction and this Court, by order dated 15.3.2007, directed the Corporation of Chennai to process the application submitted by the first respondent herein seeking building permit, in the light of the planning permission issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 18.7.2006. Enclosing a copy of the order passed in W.P. No. 9835 of 2007, the first respondent sent a letter to the Commissioner for processing the said application. However, the Commissioner, by order dated 17.4.2007, rejected the request of the first respondent on the ground that Old Survey No. 99/3 has been classified as Gramanatham and therefore it is not possible to grant building permit in respect of the said survey number. The Commissioner also directed the first respondent herein to re-submit the proposal for construction, excluding Old Survey No. 99/3. 10. It is seen from the order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, that the representation of the first respondent was examined and it revealed that Old Survey No. 99/3 has been classified as Gramanatham and therefore it was not possible to grant building permit. By the said order, the first respondent herein was directed to re-submit the proposal excluding Old Survey No. 99/3. By the said order, the first respondent herein was directed to re-submit the proposal excluding Old Survey No. 99/3. However, the learned Single Judge, ‘while finding that the appellants had delayed the process of issuing building permit, held that the appellants have not produced any material to show that the land comprised in T.S. No. 99/3 has been classified as Gramanatham and that the first respondent herein has, produced the patta issued in his favour in respect of the said survey number also. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, unless correct particulars are furnished, the first respondent is not entitled to get building permit on the basis of the planning permission issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 18.7,2006. It must be noted here that, patta is stated to have been issued to the first respondent erroneously and that the appellants have sent a letter to the Collector concerned to cancel the said patta. Further, the first respondent has put up the construction without obtaining permission from the appellants and therefore a notice under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1990 is stated to have been issued against him for putting up unauthorised construction. 11. We perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the judgment in Rangaraja Iyengar v. Achi Kannu Ammal (supra), the effect of Act 3 of 1905 after the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act in respect of Gramanatham sites came up for consideration and in that context, this Court has held as follows: “A house site owned by a person in what is generally known as gramanatham is not, under Madras Act 3 of 1905, property of the Government On such sites, buildings or sheds, may, when necessary, he constructed. But whether such buildings or sheds are constructed or not, such sites are house sites within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 of Madras Act 3 of 1905. Madras Act 3 of 1905 is made applicable to an estate when it is notified under Madras Act 26 of 1948. But whether such buildings or sheds are constructed or not, such sites are house sites within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 of Madras Act 3 of 1905. Madras Act 3 of 1905 is made applicable to an estate when it is notified under Madras Act 26 of 1948. The proviso as to vesting under Section 3(b) of Madras Act 26 of 1948 should be read so as to be in consonance with the provisions regarding the applicability of the enactments relating to ryotwari areas which are expressly made applicable to estates notified under the Act.” “It is not necessary that in order that the policy underlying Madras Act 26 of 1948 be completely given effect to, house sites belonging to private individuals (that is, persons other than the landholder) in a gramanatham, should be transferred to the Government. Section 3(b) of Madras Act 26 of 1948 does not have the effect of transferring to the Government title to a house site within a gramanatham belonging to a person other than the landholder when the estate in which the house site is situate is taken over under a notification issued under the Act.” 12. In the judgment in Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Government of Tamil Nadu (supra), the question that came up for consideration was regarding the applicability of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of lands classified as Gramanatham. In that case, this Court has held as follows: “11. It is also not the case of the respondents that the appellant and his predecessors in title were assessed to any penal charge for their possession over the disputed property. When the appellant has been in exclusive possession of- the property and their predecessors in title were also in enjoyment of the land without interference by any person, the appellant has acquired a valid right to the land by their exclusive possession. The village natham is a land which never vested with the respondents and they have no right over it. Admittedly, when the land has been classified as village natham, it is obvious that no portion of the land vests with the respondents under Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 12. Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, under which Exhibit A-2 notice has been issued, excludes gramanatham owned as house site. Admittedly, when the land has been classified as village natham, it is obvious that no portion of the land vests with the respondents under Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 12. Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, under which Exhibit A-2 notice has been issued, excludes gramanatham owned as house site. As such the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked by the respondents in respect of the land in question. 13. The issue has been settled as early as 1949 in the case Palani Ammal v. L. Sethurama Aiyangar (1949) 1 MLJ 290 that gramanatham is not a communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal that is property reserved for the use of the community. Grama Natham a land in the occupation of the individual and possession of the gramanatham cannot be interfered and it could very well resist ejectment and also institute a suit in ejectment against the trespasser.” 13. In the judgment in The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V. Swaminathan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “10. We draw inference for the above view from the decision rendered by this Court in S. Rangaraja Iyengar v. Achi Kannu Ammal (supra). A similar view is expressed by the Apex Court in its decision rendered in C.V. Subbaya v. P. Anjayya AIR 1972 SC 1421 , while referring to Section 3(b) of the Madras Act 26 of 1948, it is held therein that the communal lands, porambokes other ryotwari lands, waste lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams tanks and irrigation works, etc., vest with the Government other than the land classified as “Gramanatham”. This Court in its decision rendered in N.S. Kuppuswamy Odayar v. Narthangudi Panchayat, 1971 MLJ Reports 190 has held that the classification of “Natham Poramboke” and the description of “Poramboke‘‘ in the settlement register will not, by itself, establish title of the Government to the land in question.” “11. Similarly, this Court in Thillaivanam, A.K. and Another v. District Collector, Chengai Anna District and 3 Others, 1998 (3) L.W. 603 and in Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Government of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) CTC 221 held that the house sites classified as “Gramanatham” cannot be construed as vesting with the Government.” 12. Similarly, this Court in Thillaivanam, A.K. and Another v. District Collector, Chengai Anna District and 3 Others, 1998 (3) L.W. 603 and in Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Government of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) CTC 221 held that the house sites classified as “Gramanatham” cannot be construed as vesting with the Government.” 12. Further, “Gramanatham” is defined in the Law Lexicon as “ground set apart on which the house of village may be built.” Similarly, Natham land is described in Tamil lexicon published under the w authority of University of Madras to the effect that it is a residential portion of a village; or portion of a village inhabited by the non-Brahmins: or land reserved as house sites; etc.” 14. In the judgment in Ellammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), this Court has held as follows: “6. While admittedly, the lands in dispute are Gramanatham Poramboke, there was no question of issuing patta, since the law is well settled on the issue, namely that when once the land is classified as Gramanatham, it ceases to vest with the Government and therefore, question of issuing patta to such Gramanatham does not arise. In the present case, it is not even the case of the defendants that due to the use of this land for different purposes, there was a reclassification by making the lands not to be Gramanatham. While so, the decision arrived at by the learned first appellate Judge, on the basis that the plaintiffs have not proved under Exhibits A-10 to A-13 that the patta has not been granted in their favour, has no legal basis whatsoever.” 15. Though from the decisions referred to above, it is clear that when once the land is classified as Gramanatham, it ceases to vest with the Government, yet, the facts of those cases cannot be applied to the present case since, admittedly, in this case, the first respondent entered into a joint venture with South India Corporation Agencies Limited for developing the property in question into group development consisting of stilt plus four floors of residential dwelling units in nine blocks. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the parties concerned were in occupation of Gramanatham property as house sites for several years and therefore such lands owned as house sites were excluded from the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the parties concerned were in occupation of Gramanatham property as house sites for several years and therefore such lands owned as house sites were excluded from the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. It is seen from the materials available on record that the Corporation was directed to inspect the property in question and to file a status report as on 15.7.2008 and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai has also filed the report stating that the first respondent herein has made group development constructions consisting of stilt plus four floors with 256 dwelling units and that the entire construction has been made without obtaining building permit from the Corporation. Therefore, it is clear that the first respondent herein has made the above construction not for his own occupation but only for commercial purpose viz., he has constructed the flats and sold the same to various persons and therefore he cannot seek the indulgence of this Court by placing reliance on the judgments referred to above. In addition to that, the appellants themselves have stated that patta has erroneously been issued in respect of the property in question and that the appellants have sent a letter to the District Collector to cancel the patta. Hence, it is not open to the first respondent to contend that he has produced the patta issued in the name of South India Corporation Agencies Limited in respect of the property in question and that the appellants have not produced any material to show that the land comprised in S. No. 99/3 is Gramanatham. Further, it is seen from the materials available on record that the first 16. In view of the facts noted above the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted especially, when the first respondent has made the construction not for his own occupation but for commercial purpose only. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 17. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 17. The pathetic situation prevailing in this part of the globe, as we observed is that, ignoring the fact that Gramanatham land is a common village land, the greedy persons like the writ petitioner in this case are indulging in activities, which are purely commercial in nature. When the appellants themselves have accepted in all fairness that patta has been issued erroneously and that they have initiated necessary proceedings to cancel the same, we are unable to find fault with the impugned action initiated by the appellants herein. This rampant practice of misusing the Gramanatham lands in this part of the globe has to be curtailed immediately, so as to protect the common village lands for the welfare of the public in general. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu and its revenue officials are directed to strictly protect the Gramanatham lands from being misused, particularly for commercial purposes. 18. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Appeal allowed.