JUDGMENT : S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. Under assail is the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022. The appellant before this Court is the 3 rd respondent in the writ petition. 2. The 1 st respondent, Mr.T.Elumalai instituted the writ proceedings in W.P.No.33767 of 2022, seeking an electricity service connection for the disputed subject property from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The respondents 2 and 3 representing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, called for information from the appellant/Tahsildar, about the subject land in question. 3. In response, the appellant informed that the land in question is classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Natham”. Relying on the report of the appellant, the respondents 2 and 3 rejected the application submitted by the 1 st respondent seeking electricity service connection. Consequently, the 1 st respondent filed the writ petition challenging the order of rejection. 4. The learned Single Judge impleaded the appellant as the 3 rd respondent in the writ petition and consequently issued a direction to grant patta in favour of the 1 st respondent vide order dated 30.06.2023. On examining the documents submitted by the 1 st respondent, the appellant found them to be forged and fabricated. A report was submitted to the District Collector, Kallakurichi, who in turn passed an order vide proceedings dated 09.10.2023, refusing to issue patta in favour of the 1 st respondent. 5. The appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No.533 of 2024 to set aside the order dated 30.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022, mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given by the Writ Court to the appellant/Tahsildar before issuing a direction to grant patta in favour of the 1 st respondent. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the writ order impugned and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. 6. The learned Single Judge re-considered the writ petition in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench and allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the appellant/Tahsildar to issue patta in favour of the 1 st respondent within a period of four weeks. The Court also directed the respondents 2 and 3 herein to entertain the application seeking electricity service connection and provide the same. The Court also directed the respondents 2 and 3 herein to entertain the application seeking electricity service connection and provide the same. Additionally, a direction was issued to the District Collector to initiate action against the Revenue Officials, who have failed to issue patta without following the provisions of the Revenue Standing Orders (RSO). 7. The Writ Court further observed that if the land is required for public purposes, it may be acquired by following the due process of law. Aggrieved by the said writ order impugned, the present Intra-Court appeal came to be instituted. 8. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the land in question is classified as Government Poromboke Vacant Natham [hereinafter referred to as 'Natham']. The 1 st respondent is not entitled to patta for Natham land because he already possesses 5 acres of land in Survey Nos.140/10A, 140/12, 30/1A, 30/4, 29/4 and 140/10B, with patta standing in the name of the 1 st respondent in Patta Nos.458 and 451 respectively. Additionally, the 1 st respondent further possesses a house building in a land measuring to an extent of 5 Cents. 9. Therefore, as per the Revenue Standing Orders, he is not entitled to patta. More so, the 1 st respondent is an encroacher utilised the encroached portion of Natham land for constructing a commercial building for personal gains. According to the Revenue Standing Orders, Natham land is meant for house sites, which is to be allotted by the Government to the poor, landless people by following the guidelines under RSO 21. 10. Thus, the 1 st respondent has not approached this Court with clean hands, and therefore, the writ petition ought to have been rejected in limine. 11. Regarding the fraudulent documents produced by the 1 st respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the 1 st respondent claims that he has purchased the property by means of a registered Sale Deed dated 18.02.2022 registered as Document No.412/2019 in the office of the Sub-Registrar of North, Ponparappai. The Sale Deed was executed by Elumalai S/o. Thambi Muniyan, and Subraminan S/o. Periyathambi. 12. The aforementioned name reflects in the (Natham Land Tax Scheme Chitta) as Survey No.344. The Sale Deed was executed by Elumalai S/o. Thambi Muniyan, and Subraminan S/o. Periyathambi. 12. The aforementioned name reflects in the (Natham Land Tax Scheme Chitta) as Survey No.344. The above said name is an insertion as the relevant documents starts from page 39, the name of holder in Survey No.344, one Mr.John Basha Sahib S/o. Sathar Sahib at Column No.3, serial number starts from 344 running serial wise. The copy of the said document produced before this Court would also reveal that Survey No.344 is an insertion. Thus, the 1 st respondent has played fraud and inserted those names despite the fact that no patta was issued to them. 13. The transfer of registry number is not related to Periyathambi S/o.Nallathambi, and Subramanian S/o. Periyathambi. The transfer of registry refers TK8A-145-1418 dated 26.06.2015 is made available. The TK refers to subdivision 8A, but that subdivision refers to a different survey number and 1418 refers to the Fasli year – 1418 refers to year 2008. However, the order in TK8A is dated 26.06.2015, which appears to be a forgery and unrelated to the land in question. 14. The Sale Deed refers to the following documents: (1) Form 4, Rough Patta; (2) Death Certificate dated 10.12.2008 of Periyathambi; (3) Legal Heirship Certificate of Periyathambi dated 18.09.2019; (4) Death Certificate of Nallathambi dated 10.12.2008; (5) Death Certificate of Karuppayi, mother of Nallathambi dated10.12.2008, (6) Death Certificate of Pappathi dated 10.12.2008 were annexed. However, all these documents are identified as forged. The document was registered on 18.02.2022, but the patta appears to have been changed as if on 23.07.2019. As per the Sale Deed, the property was sold by Subramanian S/o. Periyathambi to Thambi Muniyan S/o. Elumalai. However, the names of these individuals are not found in the patta. Instead, the name "Indrani, wife of Thambi," is found. 15. The authorities found that all the documents produced by the 1 st respondent for grant of patta are forged and fabricated. The Village Administrative Officer (VAO), who has allegedly involved in the commission of offence, was placed under suspension, and the prosecution is also in progress. 16. Under these circumstances, the writ order would not only cause prejudice to the public interest but also result in unjust gain to the 1 st respondent, who has encroached the Natham land by producing forged and fabricated documents. 17. 16. Under these circumstances, the writ order would not only cause prejudice to the public interest but also result in unjust gain to the 1 st respondent, who has encroached the Natham land by producing forged and fabricated documents. 17. Mr.M.Ganesan, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would oppose by stating that the 1 st respondent purchased the subject property through a Sale Deed dated 18.02.2022, vide Document No.412/2022, from Mr.Subramanian, S/o Periyathambi. The 1 st respondent is constructing a house and has raised walls on the property. He applied for electricity service connection and it was rejected, therefore he filed a writ petition. 18. The appellant/Tahsildar was impleaded in the writ petition. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent filed a petition seeking amendment of the prayer for restoration of patta, which stood in the name of the 1 st respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. 19. The 1 st respondent mainly contended that he is the purchaser of the property and as far as the Natham lands are concerned, the Government cannot claim ownership as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court. Thus, the present writ appeal is to be rejected. 20. Admittedly, the 1 st respondent is in occupation of Natham land, which is classified as “Government Poromboke Kalinatham”. Natham lands are meant for construction of houses, and therefore the Revenue officials have no power to raise objection to the 1 st respondent for seeking new electricity service connection. 21. In the context of the above background, the issues that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether a person in occupation of Natham land can be declared as an absolute owner without reference to a grant by the Government in accordance with RSO 21. (2) Whether Government has the power to regulate the Natham lands, which is to be allotted for dwelling purposes to landless poor people in terms of RSO 21, and for other public usages. (3) Whether unilateral occupation of Natham land by any person would confer any title or ownership to the person who occupies it or whether such a person could be construed as an encroacher, and can be evicted by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 22. No person can be allowed to claim title or ownership of the land in the absence of the authority of law. 22. No person can be allowed to claim title or ownership of the land in the absence of the authority of law. Mere occupation of the land, including Natham land, would not confer title or ownership in the absence of any authority of law. Ownership or title must be established legally, and mere possession would be insufficient. 23. The legal position regarding Natham lands, including power of the Government to regulate the same in accordance with RSO 21, has been elaborately considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the context of various judgments, its scope, and applicability in the case of S.Anbananthan vs. The District Collector, Perambalur District , 2024 MHC 168. 24. The eligibility criteria for the allotment of Natham land to landless poor people shall be considered in terms of RSO 21 by the Revenue Authorities. Mere possession of Natham land without reference to the extent of the land in terms of RSO 21 would not confer any title or ownership. If rights are conferred, it will lead to lawlessness, and greedy men with muscle and political power alone can occupy such Natham lands to a larger extent for their personal gain, by depriving landless poor people for securing allotments from the hands of the Revenue Authorities in consonance with RSO 21. 25. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of N.S.Krishnamoorthi vs. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District , 2025 MHC 790 the learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 26.03.2025, holding that the judgment of the Division Bench in S.Ananandan's case cited supra is per incuriam. Thus, it is just and necessary for this Division Bench to further go into the legal principles and the judgments earlier considered by this Court in the context of Natham lands, to meet the ends of justice. HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION OF “GRAMA NATHAM”: A. PREAMBLE: 26. Tamil Nadu is home to one of the oldest civilizations in the sub-continent. Since time immemorial, people have lived in settlements constructing residential houses of different types. A typical Tamil village may be considered to have one or more habitations surrounded by cultivated agricultural lands. Though civilization of such a format dates back to antiquity, modern land revenue administration has evolved only since British times, over two centuries ago. Since time immemorial, people have lived in settlements constructing residential houses of different types. A typical Tamil village may be considered to have one or more habitations surrounded by cultivated agricultural lands. Though civilization of such a format dates back to antiquity, modern land revenue administration has evolved only since British times, over two centuries ago. Modern land administration is also interconnected with the question of Title to the land whose jurisprudence also dates back to colonial times. 27. Among the various types of land as classified by the nature of the land tenure system being followed, Grama Natham is a special type of land. Differing judicial pronouncements, executive decisions and common- sensical interpretations, often contradictory to each other have led to considerable differences in understanding of the character of the land. There is a need to comprehensively explicate the meaning and nature of Grama Natham and harmoniously interpret the various pronouncements and provisions hitherto existing. B. DEFINITION: 28. The phrase “Grama Natham” means the ground set apart, on which the houses of a village may be built,, as per Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms in British India, 1855. 29. According to the book “Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency” by Mr.S.Sundararaja Iyengar, Advocate, High Court, Madras, (1933) “…Every Tamil village is divided into (i) Warapat; (ii) Tirwapat; (iii) Tarisu and (iv) Poramboke.” The term “Poramboke” is explained as being meant from three perspectives, that is cultivation, communal purpose and revenue. They are various kinds classified according to the purpose for which they have been set apart. In common parlance, any land that does not yield revenue is known as Poramboke. Thus, it can be seen that the word “Poramboke” has twin connotations. Firstly, it would mean the lands which are used for public or communal purposes, but at the same time, it would include the land which does not yield any revenue to the Government.In this context, the Natham or Gramanatham lands are to be understood. 30. The excerpts from Chapter – II relating to Grama Natham which are relevant to the issue on hand reads as follows:- “Natham or Grama Natham is a site on which village habitations are situated, and is held free of assessment. It is included in Poramboke and is known as Natham Poramboke. It is on this side that the villagers must build their houses. It is included in Poramboke and is known as Natham Poramboke. It is on this side that the villagers must build their houses. This does not mean that they are absolutely prevented from building their houses elsewhere, but only they will have to pass the assessment fixed on the land on which they build houses and cannot claim to hold it free of assessment. In Natham are included Pilakadai or backyard of houses, a small portion of ground immediately adjoining the dwellings of the villagers and kollai or homestead. Both are free of assessment… The freehold in the soil of Gramanatham in a Ryotwari village is in Government. Its right therein consists in regulating the distribution of unoccupied natham among the intending applications for house sites and to ensure its utilisation for such purpose. The owners of houses and house sites in natham as well as grantees of unoccupied natham who have satisfied the condition of the grant by building houses are at liberty to dispose of them in any manner they choose. The classification of land as natham poramboke or Government Poramboke by the revenue authorities is not conclusive as to the character of the land is poramboke; nor does the omission to describe it as such prevent the Government from showing that it is really poramboke; nor does the mere description in the settlement register as temple poramboke vest any title in the temple.” 6. 'Grama Natham' has been defined in the Law Lexicon as follows:- “Ground set apart on which the house of a village may be built". C. DISPOSAL OF GRAMA NATHAM LANDS BY THE STATE: 31. Since time immemorial, vacant lands in Natham lands have been assigned to houseless poor as house sites under Revenue Standing Order 21. This is in contrast to the assignment of land for agricultural or other purposes under the Revenue Standing Order 21, or the alienation of land for Public Purposes under Revenue Standing Order 24. 32. The relevant portion of RSO 21 is extracted as below: General – (i) Scale of grant : Portions of natham or village site at the disposal of Government, not being land required for the common use of the villagers, may be granted for building purposes to bonafide applicants. The maximum extent that could be assigned to any applicant for building houses is 1.25 ares. The maximum extent that could be assigned to any applicant for building houses is 1.25 ares. But the Tahsildars have discretion to grant a smaller extent in special circumstances, if, for instance the grant of an extent of 1.25 ares would encroach too much upon the area available for future assignments or the extent encroached upon already is less than 1.25 ares. In cases, where the extent is more than 1.25 ares and where it cannot conveniently be sub-divided for grant to another person, assignment may be ordered under this R.S.O on collection of market value as per the norms fixed by the Government, from time to time. The assignment in all cases shall be subject to the conditions of the orders of the assignment referred to in paragraph 7 below. In assigning lands for house sites care should be taken to see that land is not granted to persons already possessing enough land for their reasonable requirements and that preference is given to those who own no house site and whose family’s income does not exceed Rs.12,000/- per annum. People belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are to be given priority in assigning house sites. 33. Extension of village sites : Revenue Standing Order 21(6) deals with extension of village sites (Grama Natham). Where existing village site is not sufficient for the needs of the resident villagers, in which case, assessed waste can be transferred to the village site poramboke by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Collector is competent to transfer all unobjectionable poramboke to village sites, thus lending credibility to the view that the Government has rights over the Natham lands. 34. Further, where availability of vacant lands in Grama Natham is not adequate to provide assignment to the houseless poor, unobjectionable Government poramboke lands are identified to be provided as house sites to the houseless poor. Before assignment of such lands, the classification of these lands is converted to Natham and only then the house sites are assigned to the poor. Notably, for assignment of house sites to members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe communities, private patta lands are acquired for the purpose of assignment, and converted into Natham, before being assigned to persons belonging to the SC/ST Communities. 35. Notably, for assignment of house sites to members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe communities, private patta lands are acquired for the purpose of assignment, and converted into Natham, before being assigned to persons belonging to the SC/ST Communities. 35. It is to be noted that the above limits on extent and eligibility have been modified from time to time by the Government but do not appear to have been incorporated in the Revenue Standing Orders. Illustratively, assignment of lands in the vicinity of Corporations or District Headquarters has been banned since the 1980s. It is high time to incorporate the limits and re-issue the Revenue Standing Order 21 to avoid mischief by assigning valuable lands quoting the earlier provisions without taking into cognizance the subsequent developments. 36. No one can occupy a land, including Natham land and declare himself/herself to be the owner as against the right of other subjects under the sovereign authority. The concept of first occupier is not accepted in a decision reported in D.Sankar and others vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and others, 2014 (1) MLJ 818 . 37. The corollary is that an individual's claim of right by mere occupation would defeat the sovereign rights of the 'State' and the rights of all other citizens in rem over the land so occupied. Ownership, including the right to possess, control and use, can be conferred and recognised only by the sovereign power under the authority of law. Otherwise, such occupation of land, including Natham land in the present case, has no legal right and it is illegal. 38. There cannot be any land within the territory of Union of India without an owner. The 'State', as a sovereign authority, is the owner of all lands declared under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, viz. List II Entry 18 of the Constitution of India. 39. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with sale.As per , sale is a transfer of ownership. So to have ownership, there are three ways to establish the same: (a) Must have a prescriptive title, like that of the State as a dominant owner; (b) Patta, which recognizes occupation, so one has to establish the ownership and; (c) Any prescriptive title against Government through adverse possession. 40. So to have ownership, there are three ways to establish the same: (a) Must have a prescriptive title, like that of the State as a dominant owner; (b) Patta, which recognizes occupation, so one has to establish the ownership and; (c) Any prescriptive title against Government through adverse possession. 40. None of the decisions relied on earlier for granting relief have considered Natham lands by taking into account the definition as a “owned house site”, inclusive of extent, which has a reference to RSO 21 in the context of Section 2 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The relevant portion of RSO 21 is extracted hereunder : “3. Treatment of unauthorized occupation:- (i) Village site not to be appropriated without previous permission: Collectors will assert the prerogative of Government by making it known in all Government villages that village site cannot be appropriated without permission previously obtained. (ii) Consequence of such appropriation:- If any portion of the village site is appropriated without permission and if the occupation is considered to be objectionable, the provisions of Act III 1905 should be applied in accordance with the instructions contained in Standing Order No.26. If the occupant is found to be entitled to an allotment and the occupation is unobjectionable the site may be formally granted in accordance with the rule, contained in paragraph 2 above and to penalty or at most a mere nominal penalty, should be imposed unless special circumstancess render the imposition of penalty desirable. (iii) Responsibility of Village Administrative Officers: Village Administrative Officers will be held responsible for presenting and reporting encroachments.” 41. In the context of the aforementioned facts, this Court is inclined to consider the decisions that are in favour of the Government and those that are against the Government, despite the fact that some of the judgments were earlier considered by this Bench in S.Anbananthan's case cited supra. This Court has drawn-up a Tabular Column comprising of cases from the year 1903 onwards for better understanding of the case laws on the subject: 42. Reading of the judgments referred in Tabular Column above would reveal that there are two sets of decisions, one set are from the year1905 to 1955 and those decisions are related to civil suits between the private individuals. Pertinently, in none of those judgments, the Government is a party to the lis. Reading of the judgments referred in Tabular Column above would reveal that there are two sets of decisions, one set are from the year1905 to 1955 and those decisions are related to civil suits between the private individuals. Pertinently, in none of those judgments, the Government is a party to the lis. However, in the case of A.K.Thillaivanam and Others vs. The District Collector Chengai Anna District , 1997 SCC Online Mad 977 the learned Single Judge relied on the two decisions i.e., Palani Ammal vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar , AIR 1949 Mad 81 ; and Rengaraja Iyengar and Another vs. Achikannu Ammal and Another , 1959 (2) MLJ 513 . 43. Pertinently, in the cases of Palani Ammal cited supra and Rengaraja Iyengar cited supra, the Government is not a party. Thus, the reliance of the above two judgments placed by the learned Single judge in the A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra may not have much relevance in the context of the legal principles. Palani Ammal's case cited supra was civil suit for ejectment in an inam village and thus, the said judgment has no application to the Natham land in the present context. 44. In the case of Rengaraja Iyengar cited supra, refers to a land situated in the Shrotriam Village of Kurunthampallam, which was an estate. The Government notified the estate under Madras Act, XXVI of 1948 on 01.10.1951. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff's vendors lost title in view of Act XXVI of 1948. The finding is that immediately on coming into effect of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905, on 19.04.1905 by operation of law, the lands owned in Natham could not be brought under Act XXVI of 1948. It is relevant to extract paragraph 12 of the above judgment which reads as under: “held that Section 3(b) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 does not have the effect of transferring to the Government, title to a house site within Natham belonging to person other than the landholder, when the estate in which the house site is situated is taken over under a notification of Act XXVI of 1948” 45. Pertinently, both cases were taken out of context and referred in A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra, which was delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Pertinently, both cases were taken out of context and referred in A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra, which was delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The cases referred to in A.K.Thillaivanam's case speaks about buildings on a house site, whereas A.K.Thillaivanam's case, involves a vacant land of 6.22 acres. Thus, we must fall back on RSO 21, which prescribes the extent of land to be granted to landless people by Revenue authorities and hence the view taken in A.K.Thillaivanam's case by the learned Single Judge seems to be not correct. 46. Consequently, all the decisions that follow A.K.Thillaivanam's case without considering RSO 21, are primarily not deciding the mode of right or ownership on Natham and hence distinguishable and, does not constitute a binding precedent. 47. Very importantly, neither in A.K.Thillaivanam's case nor in the cases of Palani Ammal and Rengaraja Iyengar , the following judgments are considered. (a) The Division Bench in the case of Jayaram Naidu cited supra more specifically in paragraph 5 held as follows “As explained in Collector of Godaveri District vs. Rangayya , 1908 (4) M.L.T. 440 , according to the common law of the country the control of Natham vests in the revenue authorities, and they are at liberty to grant portions of it at their discretion to persons who apply for it for building purposes; Government has the right at any time to appropriate it for any public special purpose.” 48. Also apart from the Division Bench judgments of this Court relating to gramanatham, there are two Hon'ble Full Bench judgments rendered by this Court, which has not been relied upon by any of the Division Bench or the learned Single Judges. It is essential to quote these Full Bench judgments in the context of Natham lands. It would be impossible to analyse the scope and purpose of Natham lands without referring to the Full Bench judgments. 49. The Hon'ble Full Bench consisting of Sir S.Subramania Ayyar, Officiating Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Boddam and Mr. Justice Bhashyam Ayyangar delivered judgment in the year 1903 in the case of Madathapu Ramaya vs. The Secretary of State for India , (1904) 27 MAD 386 , Bhashyam Iyengar, J., observed as follows: “....... 49. The Hon'ble Full Bench consisting of Sir S.Subramania Ayyar, Officiating Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Boddam and Mr. Justice Bhashyam Ayyangar delivered judgment in the year 1903 in the case of Madathapu Ramaya vs. The Secretary of State for India , (1904) 27 MAD 386 , Bhashyam Iyengar, J., observed as follows: “....... The lane in question is apparently a portion of the "Grama-nattam" or " village-site" and presumably the freehold in the soil is in the Government; and if, as was assumed during the argument, the lane or street had continued to vest in the District Board in 1998-when the penal assessment was imposed-then according to the decision in Sundaram Ayyar v. The Municipal Council of Madura (2), the street, qud-street, i.e., the surface and so much of the air space above and so much of the soil below the surface as is reasonably necessary to enable the District Board adequately to maintain and manage the street as a street, was vested in and belonged to the District Board. In Sundaram Ayyar v. The Municipal Council of Madura (1), the legal effect of the statutory vesting of a street in a municipality (by Act (Madras) IV of 1884 as amended by Act III of 1897) was considered and the conclusion arrived at; on a review of various English and some Indian decisions, was that such vesting did not transfer to the municipality the ownership in the site or soil over which the street exists. This conclusion is fortified by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Finchley Electric Light Company v. Finchley Urban District Council (2) in which, after a review of all the English decisions, Collins, M. R., stated: "The conclusion to be derived from the authorities seems to me to be this; all the stratum of air above the surface, and all the stratum of soil below the surface which in any reasonable sense can be required for the purposes of the street as street, vest in and belong to the local authority" (at page 441).” ...................... "A street in a "Natham" between two rows of houses is not necessarily a highway and it may merely be as it generally is in rural tracts— land belonging to Government , over which however there is a right of way to the houses or buildings on either side Assuming, as found by the Courts below, that the freehold in the soil of the lane belongs to Government ..." "But whether it is a highway or merely Crown land over which there is a right of way in favour of the inhabitants of the street, it is in the very nature of things land exempted from assessment; and any person encroaching thereon is a trespasser (civil) and in no sense a "landholder"..." The custom is also unreasonable as it will equally compel a person who is in or has taken possession of his own land and is not really a trespasser—though supposed to be such by the village or other Revenue authorities—to relinquish or vacate the land rather than pay a crushing assessment, which, if paid for some years, will even exceed the full value of the land. 50. In yet another case, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court consisting of Sir John Wallis, Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ayling and Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastriyar in the case of Seshachala Chetty and four others vs. Para Chinnasami and ten others , 1916 SCC OnLine Mad 347 , held as follows: “......... The true view of the case is that gramanattam is the communal property of the villagers and that the Collector can only interfere with a view to benefit the community and when his action is consistent with the common law. To alter this state of things a special enactment would be necessary. ..................... “ By immemorial usage a portion of every village is assigned rent free as a site for the dwellings of the villagers; but, as the old hukumnamas show, the enjoyment of it is subject to regulation by the Government .” ...................... “In purely mirasi villages, where the entire area belongs to the mirasidars, the gramanattam no doubt appertains to them equally with the other poramboke, but these cases are exceptional.” ............... I am not satisfied that before the establishment of British rule and especially under the Muhammadan Government, unoccupied nattam was generally recognized by Government, as the private property of the mirasidars,.............” ....................... ...................... ............. I am not satisfied that before the establishment of British rule and especially under the Muhammadan Government, unoccupied nattam was generally recognized by Government, as the private property of the mirasidars,.............” ....................... ...................... ............. The Government has always the paramount right of disposing of waste lands subject of course to such vested rights (either in mirasidars or communities) as may be proved to exist. .........” ..................... ....................... “To conclude I am of opinion that— (1) in mirasi villages the rights of Government over waste (including nattam and cheri) are subject to the rights of the mirasidars (2) the nature and extent of such rights are not uniform throughout the Presidency but vary and the onus is on the mirasidars to prove that any specified incident attaches to mirasi rights in any particular district, there being no presumption that gramanattam is the exclusive property of the mirasidars (3) the rights of mirasidars over waste are not extinguished by the mere fact that the Government grants pattas to strangers;” 51. Thus, the majority judgments are that the Government is the owner of the house sites. Further it is held in the judgment cited supra as follows: “These decisions it appears to me, are binding upon us, and they fully recognize the ownership of the mirasidars in all the lands in mirasi village including the waste. They recognizes also the right of the Government, in cases where the mirasidars refuse to cultivate the lands, waste or under cultivation, to let them to another for temporary cultivation. Whether in such cases the mirasidars retained his mirasi right, either to recover swatantrams is from the tenant let in by the Government or to turn him out, was question apparently not settled.” 52. After the Constitution of India coming into force, agrarian reforms were introduced by abolishing the mirasi system through a series of Acts, starting from Act XXVI of 1948 and including the Abolition of Intermediaries like Zamindars, Mirasi, Maniyam, etc., and conversion into Ryotwari laws, such as the Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, in short, Act XXVI of 1963. By virtue of Act XXVI of 1948 and Act XXVI of 1963, the mirasi systems were abolished. Hence, whatever rights were enjoyed by the collective body of persons (mirasidars) are now governed by the Act and appropriated by the Government as per RSO 21, as amended from time to time. 53. By virtue of Act XXVI of 1948 and Act XXVI of 1963, the mirasi systems were abolished. Hence, whatever rights were enjoyed by the collective body of persons (mirasidars) are now governed by the Act and appropriated by the Government as per RSO 21, as amended from time to time. 53. The Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Seshachala Chetty cited supra, held as follows: “It seems to me that the Government on the dissolution of village communities stands for executive purposes in their place and is clothed with all the rights of management which originally vested in the mirasidars jointly. There can be little doubt that, before the dissolution of the village communities, the affairs of the village were managed by the mirasidars in common. They were responsible for the distribution of lands, and they collected certain fees or merahs from the villages to meet the expenses of the village. The dissolution of the village communities naturally vested in the Government the administrative duties which were formerly exercised by the mirasidars, The right of Government to allot lands to non mirasidars and to put such persons in the position of ulkudis also gave the Government an interest in the nattam for, as a corollary to that right, the right of Government to grant sites in nattam followed. It would be against all principle to hold that, though the Government can confer waste lands on ryots, they cannot give the ryots sites in the nattam to build on. The Government has, therefore, a double right in the nattam. One is the right of superintendence over the nattam which originally vested in the mirasidars collectively and the other is to grant sites on the unoccupied portions of the nattam to ryots to whom they grant waste lands .” 54. In the case of Ponnia Pillai and others vs. Pannai Minor Sivanupandia Thevar through his brother and guarding R.K.Viswanatha Thevar , AIR 1947 Mad 282 the Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Wadsworth, Officiating Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Govindarajachari, decided the case, Speaking for the Bench, the Officiating Chief JusticeWadsworth held as follows: “The argument is that all these lands were plots situated within a large number which is registered in the revenue records as Natham poramboke and it is contended on the authority of the decision in Jayarama Naidu Vs. Justice Govindarajachari, decided the case, Speaking for the Bench, the Officiating Chief JusticeWadsworth held as follows: “The argument is that all these lands were plots situated within a large number which is registered in the revenue records as Natham poramboke and it is contended on the authority of the decision in Jayarama Naidu Vs. Secretary of States for India (1929) MWN 143 that when there is a question of title to land registered as Natham poramboke, mere proof of occupation for a period of years less than 60 years would not be sufficient and it is necessary to establish either a grant from Government or occupation for a sufficient period to establish a prescriptive right against the Government.” 55. In another Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr.Justice Ayling and Mr. Justice Odgers, in the case of The Taluk Board, Dindigul vs. Venkatramier and Others , AIR 1924 Mad 197 it was held as follows: “I do not propose to labour this point, as it is sufficient to quote from the judgment of a Bench of this court (Benson and Bhashyam lyengar, JJ) dealing with an absolutely similar case Collector of Godavari District Vs. Peddareneayya; ' according to the common law of the country, the control of Natham vests with the revenue authorities and they are at liberty to grant portions of it at their discretion to persons' whocapplies for it for building purposes ' Since this is a Division Bench judgment, the other second Judge Odeers J observes as follows: the question is have the Plaintiffs acquired any and what rights in the suit lands. The question falls under two heads, (i) have they acquired such rights, if at all by joint enjoyment; (ii)or by grant? The land is admittedly building site poramboke and any right acquired by long enjoyment must have been acquired against Government.' Further they have also observed that 'but it is always understood that this use is permissive on the part of the Government and that Government has the right at any time to appropriate it for any special public purpose, or grant it to an individual for building purpose" The judgment recognized the right of Government on Natham lands. 56. In the case of Rudrappa Nayak vs. Dasan , AIR 1933 Mad 610 . Mr. 56. In the case of Rudrappa Nayak vs. Dasan , AIR 1933 Mad 610 . Mr. Justice Pakenham Walsh, held as follows: “The registration of the land has cattle-stand in the settlement registers does not imply any grant. See decisions in S.A.No.1656 of 1928 and S.A.No.692 of 1926 of this Court. In the former case, Wallace J; held that "the mere Registry of land in a village as a particular kind of poramboke creates no vested right in the villages to hold it against Government.” 57. In the same paragraph, it was further held that "the revenue officials must be left to their own judgment in such matters and their judgment cannot be questioned by Civil Court. We see the undesirable result of the Civil Court's interference in the present case. 4 M.L.T.440 which is quoted for the Appellants appears to be against them. It was there held that according to the common law of the country, the control of Natham vest in the revenue authorities and they are at liberty to grant portions of it at their discretion to persons to apply for it.” 58. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that misplaced reliance has been placed in the cases of A.K.Thillaivanam , Palani Ammal and S.Rengaraja Iyengar , since in none of these cases the Hon'ble Full Bench judgments have been referred to nor discussed. Hence, the cases of A.K.Thillaivanam , Palani Ammal and S.Rengaraja Iyengar is not a correct law. In the cases involving right over Natham lands, no concrete decision can be arrived at without referring the Full Bench judgments cited supra. In essence, the Full Bench judgments are rendered by some of the most eminent Judges of this Court and cannot be bypassed in the cases dealing with Natham lands. 59. Now we have to see, whether the order of the Learned Single Judge in N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case cited supra is correct in declaring that S.Anbananthan's case cited supra as per incuriam. The Learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that in S.Anbananthan's case the following judgments have not been considered. It is factually not correct. 59. Now we have to see, whether the order of the Learned Single Judge in N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case cited supra is correct in declaring that S.Anbananthan's case cited supra as per incuriam. The Learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that in S.Anbananthan's case the following judgments have not been considered. It is factually not correct. S.Anbananthan's case refers to the judgments as under: 1) Paragraph 70 deals with A.K.Thillaivanam's case cited supra 2) In paragraph 75, A.Sacractice's case cited supra has been dealt with; 3) In paragraph 6(2), R.A.V.Kovil's case cited supra is dealt with; 4) In paragraph 73, T.S.Ravi's case cited supra has been referred; 5) In paragraph 52, Babu's case cited supra the judgment of Madurai Bench which quashed the circular dated 07.08.2015 is referred. 60. The next point for consideration is whether the decisions in A.Sacractice's case, R.A.V.Kovil Annaiya Charities case and T.S.Ravi and T.S.Sulochana's case, dealt with in S.Anbananthan's case are distinguishable. These judgments have not dealt with RSO 21. This arose because the Learned Single Judge found otherwise, stating that the principles contained in the above judgments were not followed in S.Anbananthan's case. However, the above three judgments did not take into consideration RSO 21, as they dealt with compensation payable under land acquisition matters and did not decide title of Natham. 61. In all the above cases, the findings are that the land is Natham, and therefore, the Government has no right or power to regulate, and thus, the compensation has to be paid for the acquisition. Incidentally, in the above three cases, stated in the aforementioned paragraph, the subject lands were classified as “Natham” meant for house-sites to be allotted to the landless poor people in terms of RSO 21, which had been converted for commercial usage for personal gains by the occupants. 62. In the case of D.Sankar cited supra , the issue was about payment of compensation. As against this judgment Mr.D.Sankar preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in S.L.P.(Civil).No.34439-34440 of 2021 and it was dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.12.2011. Pertinently CMRL filed separate SLP which was converted as Civil Appeal No.8269 of 2015 (Chennai Metro Rail Limited, represented by Managing Director Mr.D.Sankar and Others) by an order dated 27.10.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relegated the land owners to approach the Civil Court of law to establish their right. Pertinently CMRL filed separate SLP which was converted as Civil Appeal No.8269 of 2015 (Chennai Metro Rail Limited, represented by Managing Director Mr.D.Sankar and Others) by an order dated 27.10.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relegated the land owners to approach the Civil Court of law to establish their right. The respondents in the said civil appeal filed Civil Suit No.725 of 2018 and it was dismissed by the Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025. 63. The Division Bench in C.Indra Prasad Represented by its P.O.A.P Srinath Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Others , 2014 SCC Online Mad 2267 has found that if the gramantham is used for commercial purpose; they are not entitled for any compensation. In paragraph 5, it is observed as follows: “We do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions. A perusal of the impugned order would show that as per the records, the lands have been classified as circar poramboke. It is seen that the Town Survey Register shows the classification of land poramboke. Even assuming that the lands are Natham lands, they can only be used for residential purpose. Admittedly, in all these cases, the Petitioners have put up commercial building. Therefore, the authorities have rightly held that the Petitioners do not have any right over the properties which are subject matter of the proceedings .” 64. The judgments of the Division Bench in the cases of D.Shankar and C.Indra Prasad represented by its P.O.A.P Srinath , held that the persons in occupation of the Natham lands and using for commercial purposes are not entitled for compensation. The above two judgments are not considered in the cases of A.Sacractice's , R.A.V Kovil Annayya Charities's , and T.S.Ravi and T.S.Sulochana's cases cited supra. The learned Single Judge also has not considered those judgments while holding that S.Anbananthan's case cited supra is per incuriam. In T.S.Ravi's case, an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same had been subsequently withdrawn. In T.S.Ravi's case, patta has been given by the Revenue Authorities and at later point of time the same was revoked by the Revenue Authorities. But the difference is that in T.S.Ravi's case, RSO 21 had not been considered at all. 65. In T.S.Ravi's case, patta has been given by the Revenue Authorities and at later point of time the same was revoked by the Revenue Authorities. But the difference is that in T.S.Ravi's case, RSO 21 had not been considered at all. 65. Similarly in A.R.Meenakshi and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu , 2013 (4) LW 76 , it is also a case of compensation, wherein patta has been given and there is no contradiction to the proposition stated in S.Anbananthan's case, except that RSO 21 was not considered in the judgment. Likewise, in another unreported judgment in W.A.No.1263 of 2024, R.Elumalai and another vs. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 04.07.2024, there is a reference to RSO 21. In this case, the Natham land was assigned, and the assignment was cancelled, since the assignees had violated the conditions. Paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is extracted below, establishes the right of the Government in Natham lands: “6. Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the land being classified as Grama Nathan does not vest with the Govertiment and the Government not being the paramount title-holder, is not entitled to resume the grant. The said proposition of law would apply only in cases of occupied natham lands and not unoccupied natham lands, which are assigned under RSO 21. Having accepted the assignment from the Government, it is not open to the appellants to now contend that the Government is not the paramount title-holder.” 66. In another judgment in W.P.(MD). No.24407 of 2024 K.Veluisamy vs. the District Collector cum Chairperson High Level Monitoring Committee Tenkasi District dated 21.10.2024 accepts the proposition that under Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, all lands, which are public lands vest in the Government except that those that are owned as house sites or backyard but however, says that Government is barred in taking proceedings under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. But there is no reference about RSO 21. 67. The Learned Single Judge in N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case cited supra has classified natham as occupied and unoccupied. For occupied natham, the extent is not mentioned and the proof for occupation is not defined and so only the available source is RSO 21 and the issuance of patta by the Government are prescription to title by adverse possession. 67. The Learned Single Judge in N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case cited supra has classified natham as occupied and unoccupied. For occupied natham, the extent is not mentioned and the proof for occupation is not defined and so only the available source is RSO 21 and the issuance of patta by the Government are prescription to title by adverse possession. Regarding the classification of unoccupied lands, the Learned Single Judge says that for unoccupied lands, the Government has got right. What is applicable to unoccupied land is also applicable to occupied lands. In the decision in W.A.No. 1263 of 2024 R.Elumalai and another Vs. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 04.07.2024, the Division Bench said even for the violation of the assignment conditions, the Government has got right to take action and cancel patta. So, the right of the Government has been decided in both the categories and hence the finding of the Learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the principles laid down in two Full Bench judgments and Division Bench judgments cited supra. Thus, N.S.Krishnamoorthi's case has denuded to loose its status as precedent. 68. In a decision reported in Zonal Officer Chennai Corporation vs. Narasa Reddy Kances Constructions Pvt Ltd , 2012(4) MLJ 646 , it has been pointed out that: "the pathetic situation prevailing in this part of the globe, as observed is that ignoring the fact that the Natham land is a common village land, the greedy persons like the Petitioners 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 necessary proceedings to cancel the same, we are unable to find fault with the impugned action initiated by the Appellants herein. It is rampant practice of misusing the Natham 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 Natham land being misused, particularly for commercial purpose.” 69. Therefore the Government of Tamil Nadu and its revenue officials are directed to strictly protect the Natham land being misused, particularly for commercial purpose.” 69. Even though this paragraph has been quoted in almost all the Division Bench judgments, the anguish expressed in these paragraphs of the judgment has not been considered at all. In the present appeal, the respondent owns land and a house, and he has encroached on another natham to an extent of 20 Cents, and comes up with a commercial building. The finding is that it is a Natham, hence, the Government has got no role, and a patta is to be issued. If such a proposition is accepted, the anguish expressed in the above judgment will become a reality. 70. Pertinently, in the present case, the appellant/Tahsildar could establish that the 1 st respondent is not entitled for patta, mainly on two grounds, i.e., firstly, he possesses 5 acres of land and a house property, wherein he constructed a pucca house and secondly, mere occupation of Natham land would confer no right of title or ownership. 71. Natham lands, meant for dwelling houses, and to be regulated by the Government in terms of RSO 21. The land is to be allotted evenly to the landless poor people based on eligibility criteria contemplated under RSO 21. 72. In the event of conferring right, title or ownership of natham lands, merely based on voluntary occupation of a person or to an encroacher, then on account of sky-rocketing of land value, few powerful greedy individuals alone will illegally occupy natham lands for unjust personal gains. Natham lands are meant for dwelling purposes and to be allotted by Revenue authorities to the poor landless people in terms of RSO 21 or for public usage. 73. In the present case, the 1 st respondent is not a poor landless person, but already owning lands and house. That apart, he has encroached upon natham lands by creating bogus and fraudulent documents by manipulating the revenue records with the collusion of few revenue officials and constructed commercial buildings for personal gains. 74. In view of the above discussion, the writ order impugned dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.