Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1842 (MAD)

R. Mahendrakumar v. District Collector

2025-04-02

N.ANAND VENKATESH

body2025
ORDER : This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 07.3.2024. 2. Heard both parties. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows : (i) The property in R.S.Nos.26 & 27, Block No.12, Reddy Street, Villivakkam, Chennai originally belonged to one Mr.Munisamy Reddiar. The subject property was classified as a grama natham. Later, the said Mr.Munisamy Reddiar executed a sale deed dated 31.10.1914 in favour of one Mr.Subburaya Chettiar and two others. Thereafter, the subject property was inherited by their legal heirs and ultimately, a partition deed was entered into on 18.1.1984 registered as doc.No.232 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet, by which, the subject property was allotted to the father of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is none other than the paternal uncle of the first petitioner. (ii) An attempt was made to take over the subject property without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894. Hence, the petitioners and two others filed W.P.No.25780 of 2021 before this Court seeking to forbear the respondents therein from acquiring the subject property without complying with the mandatory provisions of acquisition for the purpose of constructing a metro rail project. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.12.2021 and the respondents therein were restrained from acquiring the subject property except by due process of law. (iii) Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Government had accorded permission to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited to enter into the subject property and proceed further with the work for implementing the project. Based on that, a notice was served on the first petitioner, who, in turn, submitted all the relevant documents. On receipt of the same, the impugned proceedings dated 07.3.2024 came to be issued by the third respondent and thereby, an attempt was made to take over possession of the subject property after considering the same as a government poramboke land. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. On receipt of the same, the impugned proceedings dated 07.3.2024 came to be issued by the third respondent and thereby, an attempt was made to take over possession of the subject property after considering the same as a government poramboke land. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. When the above writ petition came up for hearing on 05.4.2024, this Court passed the following order : "Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that without prejudice to the rights of the parties, they will deposit the constructing cost as well as the land cost to the credit of the writ petition. According to him, Chennai Metro Rail Limited requires 139 sq.mts. in permanent basis and 400 sq.mts. in temporary basis. 2. For calculation and filing a report in this regard, post on 23.4.2024." 5. When the case was once again listed for hearing on 13.3.2025, this Court passed the following order : "When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the CMRL submitted that pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court, the total compensation amount for both the land and the superstructure has been included and it comes to the tune of Rs.3,72,29,124/-. The learned Standing counsel submitted that this amount will be deposited by the 2 nd respondent. Ultimately, the amount will be paid as per the directions issued by this Court in the present writ petition, since the property in question has been shown as a grama natham in the revenue records and the petitioners are claiming right over the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seek for some time to take instructions in this case. 3. Post this case on 18.03.2025 along with WP Nos.6795, 4936, 6514 and 6015 of 2025." 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order. 7. The respondents are attempting to take over the subject property on the premise that the subject property is a grama natham poramboke. They have assessed the total value of the subject property including the superstructure at Rs.3,72,29,124/-. 7. The respondents are attempting to take over the subject property on the premise that the subject property is a grama natham poramboke. They have assessed the total value of the subject property including the superstructure at Rs.3,72,29,124/-. The first petitioner is not willing to receive this compensation amount on the ground that the compensation has been fixed by taking the market value at a very low rate whereas the first petitioner is entitled for a higher compensation going by the present market value that is prevailing in the locality. 8. In the considered view of this Court, it is quite evident from the records that the subject property is a grama natham land. The title is traced from the year 1914 onwards and the subject property has been occupied by the predecessor in title as well as the petitioners for over a century. In such circumstances, the subject property cannot be categorized or classified as a government poramboke land. 9. This Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of grama natham land in the case of N.S.Krishnamurthi & Others Vs. District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri [W.P.No.4936 of 2025 etc. cases dated 26.3.2025] wherein the relevant portion is extracted as hereunder : "48. From a reading of the precedents, the following conclusions emerge: "(i) Where the grama natham land is occupied and such occupation has been recognized by the State by way of successive transfers etc., the land is the private property of the occupant. Such lands cannot be regarded as Government property nor can they be regarded as encroachments by virtue of the exception contained in Section 2 of the Act. (ii) By virtue of the decision in the case of T.S.Ravi , the reclassification of grama natham, which is occupied, cannot be done, as the State cannot deprive the rights acquired by the citizen by reclassifying such property. The State of Tamil Nadu is bound by the law declared in the said decision, which it has accepted by withdrawing the appeals filed against the said judgment before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.12210 of 2019 on 31.10.2023. (iii) Where the land is unoccupied, the paramount title to these lands would vest in the State, in public trust, to be dealt with according to the Revenue Standing Orders. (iii) Where the land is unoccupied, the paramount title to these lands would vest in the State, in public trust, to be dealt with according to the Revenue Standing Orders. (iv) In cases where unoccupied grama natham is temporarily or recently occupied and there is no evidence of any recognition of such occupation by the State, here too the position is akin to what is set out in paragraph 48(iii) supra. The position would also be the same in respect of an occupant of grama natham lands, against whom, the State has levied prohibitory assessment under the Act by issuing B Memos. (v) Persons in unauthorized occupation or encroachers of unoccupied grama natham may be evicted through the mechanism of the Act namely the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. (vi) The circular dated 07.8.2015 issued by the then Additional Commissioner for Land Administration has been quashed by a Division Bench in the case of Babu . Consequently, the State is bound to respect the declaration of law and any attempt to resurrect the said circular would be viewed seriously and this Court would not hesitate to initiate proceedings for contempt against the Commissioner of Land Administration if such attempts are made to indirectly interfere in the administration of justice by undermining a series of judicial orders. (vii) The Commissioner for Land Administration shall issue a circular in line with the conclusions set out supra, in paragraph 48(i) to (v). The circular shall further instruct that the concerned Revenue Authorities will now be required to examine an application for patta in respect of grama natham lands by applying the guidelines contained in the circular to be issued. The needful be done by the Commissioner for Land Administration within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 10. It is very clear from the said common order dated 26.3.2025 that in so far as an occupied grama natham is concerned, such lands cannot be regarded as the government poramboke lands nor can they be regarded as encroachments. Hence, the right acquired by the occupants cannot be deprived by classifying the lands as poramboke lands. If at all the subject property is required for the project of the CMRL, proceedings will have to be initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act and the subject property has to be acquired. 11. Hence, the right acquired by the occupants cannot be deprived by classifying the lands as poramboke lands. If at all the subject property is required for the project of the CMRL, proceedings will have to be initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act and the subject property has to be acquired. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings is hereby quashed and liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings if the subject property is required and proceed further in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.