LAW FINDER

Submitted By: Venkatraman J

PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Kamatchi ammal v. Village Panchayat President, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1386635
Use Law Finder doc id for citation.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Before:- Mr. M.V.Muralidaran, J.
CRP(PD)No. 5155 of 2011 and M.P.No. 1 of 2011. D/d. 17.07.2017.
Kamatchi ammal and anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The Village Panchayat President Kadiyar Village and anr. - Respondents
For the Petitioner :- Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate.
Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Section 2.
Cases Referred :
A.K.Thillaivanam, A.K.Dayalan v. The District Collector, Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, The
District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District, The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District and The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengai Anna
District 1993 (3) L.W. 603
A.Srinivasan, S.Rukmani Ammal v. The Tahsildar, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras-600 031,
2010 (1) L.W. 123
Chinnathambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramania Ayyar (49 L.W. 326), decided on 6.12.1938
Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District v. V.Swaminatham,
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600
009, The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri 2004 (3) L.W. 278
M.S.Krishnan (Died) v. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the District Collector Salem,The Revenue
Divisional Officer, O/O, the Revenue Divisional Office, Salem, The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Fort Main
Road, Salem, Arulmigu Sri Mariamman Koil Devasthanam rep. by the President Secretary and
Treasurer of the Trustees 2001 (2) L.W. 723
Muthammal (died) v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Collector of Salem District, Salem, The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, Salem District 2006 (3) L.W. 361
Palani Ammal v. L.Sethurama Aiyangar 1949 (1) MLJ 290 : 62 L.W.204
S.Rengaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal 1959 (2) MLJ 513 : 72 L.W. 767
Syed Abdul Jabbar v. The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Denkanikottai,
Dharmapuri District, 2010 (3) TLNJ 643 (Civil)
Thillaivanam v. the District Collector, Chengai Anna Dist. At Kanchipuram, 1998 (3) L.W.603.
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

ORDER
M.V.Muralidaran, J. - The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10 of 2010, on the file of the
learned Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur.
2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that they filed the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2010 before the
learned Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur, for declaration and for permanent injunction against
the respondents/defendants.
3. The suit properties are situated at Kadiyar Village, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District, which
is classified as Gramanatham in the Revenue Records. The petitioners/plaintiffs also stated that the
first item of the suit schedule of property belongs to the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff and the second
item of the suit schedule of property belongs to the 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff and the entire suit
properties are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs and their
forefathers time in immemorial.
4. It is also the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that there is a property adjacent to the northern
side of the suit schedule of property and their forefathers have been enjoying the same as their
Cattle shed and Cart shed for storing hay and now used for the Tractor shed. Considering the
petitioners/plaintiffs case, the time immemorial enjoyment of the suit schedule of property, the 1st
respondent viz., the District Collector, Villupuram District, also confirmed the title and issue patta in
RS.No.79/99 in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit properties are absolute
possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. The petitioner also states that earlier the petitioners/plaintiffs were filed a civil suit in O.S.No.901
of 1994 before the very same learned Principal District Muunsif Court, Thirukoilur, against the 3rd
parties and the same was also decreed on 03.08.2000. Therefore, the respondents/defendants in this
suit have no right or title over the suit properties. As per the direction of the District Collector, the
1st respondent herein had permitted the 2nd respondent Village Panchayat President to make
construction a building in the village and the 2nd respondent taking advantage of that with a view
to reck the vengence due to recent local Panchayat Election, the 2nd respondent Village Panchayat
President arranged to construct a building on 05.01.2010 in the suit schedule of properties.
Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs are filed the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2010. Along with the suit, the
petitioners were filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.45 of 2010 for temporary injunction
restraining the respondents, their men and subordinates from interfering into the petitioners
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of properties.
6. On receipt of the Interlocutory Application, the 2nd respondent has filed counter, which was
adopted by the 1st respondent in which he denied the entire allegations set out in the affidavit and
they admitted that the suit schedule of property situated at Kadiyar Village, Thirukoilur and the
same was classified as Gramanatham. The respondents were denied that the 1st item belongs to the
absolute possession of the 1st petitioner and 2nd item is belongs to the possession of the 2nd
petitioner.
7. The respondents states that it is not true that the petitioners/plaintiffs were given patta by the
Government based on their possession and enjoyment, the respondents were also equally denied
that the suit filed in O.S.No.901 of 1994 against the 3rd parties, since the respondents were no
knowledge about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.901 of 1994, since the respondents were not parties
to the said suit.
8. The respondents also states that the Survey Numbers and the boundaries given in the suit
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

schedule of property are not correct, since the suit property is mentioned in the Adangal as empty
garden and it is also classified under Natham Land Revenue System. The respondents also states
that the suit schedule of properties were not registered in the name of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The
properties in S.No.40/1 is a Natham Poramboke belongs to the Government, measuring about 1502
sq. mt. and the petitioners/plaintiffs were given thoraya patta S.No.40/3 to an extent of 178 sq. metre
and S.No.40/4 to an extent of 174 sq. metre, based on which the petitioners/plaintiffs does not have
any right to construct any building in the suit schedule of properties and the revenue authorities
would take steps to cancel the thoraya patta given in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, if
necessary. Since the Government have making arrangements to construct a building in the
gramanatham poramboke land belonging to them, which is next to the south of the suit schedule of
properties in the interest of the general public under education scheme, as a result of which the
said petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the respondents are prayed the
trial Court to dismiss the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
9. Considering both side arguments, the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur, by order
dated 07.09.2010 was pleased to allow the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.45 of 2010 and grant
an order of injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned Judge passed an order
based on the order of the Judgment reported in 2010 (1) Law Weekly page 123, it has been held
that the Gramanatham cannot be considered, ipso facto, as Government property and once it is
found that the suit schedule of property is classified as Gramanatham, it should be held that it does
not belongs to Government. The learned Judge also states that except Exs.P1 and P2, the petitioners
were not produced any other documents, but on perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit
properties are vacant house site and therefore, it is seen that as per Ex.R1 the land 'Natham' has
been recommended for transfer in S.No.40/1 (after subdivision in S.No.41/19) to the Education
Department for the purpose of construction of building. But, it does not stated in Ex.R1 that the
lands in R.S.No.40/1 (now sub-divided as 40/3 and 40/4) has to be transferred to the Education
Department for the purpose of construction of building. Moreover, S.No.40/1 has been sub-divided as
40/19 as per Ex.R1 and it is not meant for the petitioners/plaintiffs land comprised in S.No.40/3 and
40/4 (Old R.S.No.40/1). Thus, it is evident that even though the respondents/defendants has right to
construct a building for the purpose of Education Department, it is restricted to 00320 sq. mt. in
R.S.No.40/19 as per Ex.R1.
10. The learned Judge also states that the respondents have not produced any documents to show
that whether the land actually vest either with the Government or the Town Panchayat in respect
of classification of land as Gramanatham. It is not the communal property in the sense in which
thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal. The Gramanatham land if
unoccupied is assigned from from time to time by the proprietor whether it is an Zamindariaroa or
in an inam area. Therefore, considering all these facts, the learned Principal District Munsif,
Thirukoilur, allowed the I.A.No.45 of 2010.
11. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.45 of 2010, the 2nd respondent Village Panchayat
President has filed an Appeal in CMA.No.8 of 2010 before the learned 1st Additional Subordinate
Judge, Villupuram, on the ground that when the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was
enacted Gramanatham (House site) is exempted from Government property under Section 2(e) of
the Act, in respect of this Court, considering the same, from the year 1949 to 2010 continuously and
concurrently prohibited the Government from interfering in the house site. The house site belongs
to the individuals who had occupied it, neither the Government can issue patta nor cancel it
because it is not the property of the Government.
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

12. The 2nd respondent/appellant also raising ground by saying that the property in question is the
Education Department is making construction in the property to an extent of 320 sq. mt. in
S.No.40/19, which is nothing to do with S.No.40/3, 40/4 alleged as properties of petitioners. Therefore,
they prayed the First Appellate Court viz., the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram, to allow the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside the order passed in I.A.No.45
of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010, dated 07.09.2010.
13. Considering both side cases, the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, allowed
the said CMA.No.8 of 2010, by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.45 of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010,
dated 07.09.2010 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur, granting injunction in favour
of this petitioners/plaintiffs, on the ground that the Survey Number, which has been given by the
petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit schedule of property as S.No.40/3 and S.No.40/4 is no way connected
with the suit property. But the Education Department is making construction in S.No.40/19, which is
clearly proved through Ex.R1, which is filed by the respondent/appellant.
14. The learned Judge also states that without any legal basis, the learned Principal District Munsif,
Tirukoilur, was pleased to allow the application in I.A.No.45 of 2010 for granting injunction, since
the petitioners/plaintiffs have not shown prima facie case and possession over in S.No.40/19 to an
extent of 0.320 sq. mt. Challenging the order in CMA.No.8 of 2010, dated 22.03.2011, the present Civil
Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
15. I heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and there is no
representation on behalf of the respondents and perused the entire records.
16. It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that the suit schedule of property in R.S.No.40/1, sub
divided as 40/3 and 40/4 is classified in the revenue records as Gramanatham.
17. As per the Gramanatham, the first occupier of the land is the owner of the land and it was
classified only for house sites and the said village Gramanatham lands were never vested with the
Government or the town Panchayat and the Government have no right over the Gramanatham
property. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs are the first occupier of the property, they were in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. To recognise their possession of the said suit
schedule of property, the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar has also issued patta on 25.05.1990 itself and
recognise their continuous occupation and possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of
property. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners/plaintiffs have been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule of property right from the year 1990.
18. Per contra, the respondents, particularly the 2nd respondent Village Panchayat has filed an
appeal before the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, by stating that as per
Ex.R1, the land in Survey number in R.S.No.40/19 to an extent of 0.320 sq. mt. was allotted for
constructing the building for the purpose of Education Department, except the said document, there
is no other documents filed by the 2nd respondent Village Panchayat.
19. Apart from this, there was no representation for the 2nd respondent/Village Panchayat to make
arguments for supporting their case. In fact, when the matter has been taken up for admission on
23.12.2011, this Court grant an order of the interim injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs
and the order is follows:
"Notice regarding admission returnable in three weeks. Private notice is also permitted.
2. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had the benefit of
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

injunction and it was not stated before the Appellate Court.

Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction for a period of three weeks."
For vacating the said interim injunction as on date, there was no application filed by the 2nd
respondent/Village Panchayat.
20. Apart from this, this Court in various judgments considered the cases that the Gramanatham
land is not the property of the Government or the Village Panchayat or Town Panchayat. This Court
also held that the first occupier of the land is the absolute owner of the particular portion of the
land of Gramanatham. The petitioners also states that earlier they were filed a Civil Suit in
O.S.No.901 of 1994 before the very same Court against the 3rd party in which the very same Court
namely, the learned District Munsif Court declare the possession and title of the property in favour
of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
21. When the suit has been filed for the schedule of property in respect of S.No.40/1, which was sub
divided as 40/3 and 40/4, how the learned Appellate Judge has taken the view that the case of the
2nd respondent Village Panchayat President that the suit schedule of property is in respect of
R.S.No.40/19 and the said land to an extent of 0.320 sq. mt. allotted to the Education Department for
the purpose of constructing the building to the Education Department. The Appellate Court has not
considered that since when the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs is only that the suit schedule of
property is S.No.40/1, which is sub divided as 40/3 and 40/4, how the Appellate Court comes to
conclusion that the suit schedule of property is S.No.40/19. The learned Appellate Judge namely, the
learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, totally loss his eyes, when the case of the
respondent/appellant in respect of the Village Panchayat that the land in S.No.40/19 was allotted to
Education Department, the Appellate Judge might have seen that and to verify the suit schedule of
property that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit only in respect of Survey No.40/1 sub-divided as
S.No.40/3 and S.No.40/4 and the learned Appellate Judge cannot say that S.No.40/3 and S.No.40/4 are
not relevant to the suit schedule of property and S.No.40/19 is only the relevant.
22. When the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a case only in respect of S.No.40/3 and S.No.40/4, there is no
question of S.No.40/19 would arose in this case and the allegations of the Village Panchayat
President that S.No.40/19 was allotted to Education Department is no way connected with the case
in hand. To support his case, the petitioners/plaintiffs has produced several judgments as follows:
(1) In the case of 1. A.K.Thillaivanam, 2. A.K.Dayalan v. 1. The District Collector,
Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, 2. The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kancheepuram, Chengai Anna District and 4. The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Chengai Anna District reported in 1993-3- L.W. 603 , in para 19, 23 and 25 as follows:
"19. That apart, it has been admitted in the counter affidavit that the land is a village Natham.
The village Natham is a land which never vested with the respondents and they have no right
to it. Admittedly, when the land has been classified as village Natham, it is obvious that no
portion of the land vests with the respondents. The admitted classification is village Natham
and merely because the petitioners have converted the same into agricultural lands, no right
could accrue to the respondents even after conversion.
23. Being a grama natham, it is obvious that the land in question had never vested with the
Government. Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 excludes gramanatham owned as
house site. As such the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked by
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

the respondents in respect of the land in question.

25. In S.Rengaraja Iyengar and another v. Achikannu Ammal and another (1959) 2
MLJ 513 = 72 L.W. 767) it has been held thus:-
"It is contended that in relation to buildings, specific provision is made under Section 18 of Act
XXVI of 1948 and that, consequently, unless a house site can be brought within the ambit of
Section 18, such house-site should be held to be property as to which title gets transferred to
the Government under Section 3(b). Section 18 deals, in my opinion, with buildings wherever
they may be situate, whether in the gramanatham or in ryoti lands or pannai lands or waste
lands. Section 18 has no particular application to buildings or house sites in a gramanatham. A
building in a gramanatham (or Village habitation) is protected from transfer of title to the
Government both under Section 18(1) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and under the Madras Land
Encroachment Act (III of 1905). The title to a house site in a gramanatham is protected from
transfer to Government by the operation of Madras Act III of 1905.
It is not necessary that in order that the policy underlying Madras Act XXVI of 1948 be
completely given effect to, house-sites belonging to private individuals (that is persons other
than the land holder) in a gramanatham, should be transferred to the Government. It is not
part of the policy of the Act to transfer to the Government, land in which the proprietor had
no interest at any time. Further, transfer of title of such house-sites to the Government would
be virtually without payment of compensation because there would be no means of
determining the part of the total compensation payable for the estate as a whole, which should
be regarded as compensation paid for a few cents of house-sites in a hamlet of the village.
Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the Act, in relation to transfer of title as to a house site,
such ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the owner, because no legislation should be
held to be expropriatory in character if such an inference could possibly be avoided. I hold
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 a gramanatham belonging to a person other than the
land holder when the estate in which the house site is situate is taken over under a
notification issued under the Act."
(2) In the case of The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District v. 1. V.Swaminatham, 2. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its
Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The District
Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri reported in 2004-3-L.W. 278 , in para 5 as follows:-
"5. While dealing with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
matter has to be dealt with in the light of the nature and classification of the land which is
under occupation of the petitioners. There is no dispute that the land under occupation of the
petitioners is classified as 'Natham' or otherwise called as 'Grama Natham' land and the
petitioners were g ranted pattas as early as in the year 1992 recognising their continued
occupation. For the purpose of exercising right as against the petitioners to evict them from the
land in question, it has to be decided as to whether the ' Grama Natham' land actually vests
either with the Government or the Town Panchayat. As regards the classification of the land
as 'Grama Natham', it is not the communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or
burning grounds or other property is communal viz., the property reserved for the use of the
community. The 'Grama Natham' land, if it is unoccupied, is assigned from time to time by the
proprietor whether it is in zamindari area or in an inam village; and the said practice was
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

referred to by the learned Judge Wadsworth, J. In Chinnathambi Goundan v.

Venkatasubramania Ayyar (49 L.W. 326) as early as on 6.12.1938 . The learned Judge
while dealing with the vacant house sites, taken note of the recognised practice of the then
Madras Presidency, excluding the areas with a special revenue law such as Malabar, the
control of unoccupied village site vests in the proprietor whoever he may be. A further
reference is also made therein to the effect that in Zamindari areas, that control is exercised
by Zamindar and in a shrotriem village not falling under the Estates Land Act, the village site
vests in the shrotriemdar. Even in respect of lands covered under the Madras Estate Land Act,
it is held that the Government can exercise its powers only to the limited extent to prevent the
diversion of village site poramboke from the purpose for which it has been reserved and it was
held therein that the village sites did not actually vest with the Government. The above view
was approved subsequently in the decision rendered in Palani Ammal v. L.Sethurama
Aiyangar reported in 1949 (1) MLJ 290=62 L.W.204 ."
(3) In the case of A.Srinivasan, 2. S.Rukmani Ammal v. The Tahsildar, Egmore
Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras-600 031 reported in 2010-1-L.W. 123 , it is held as
follows:
"Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (1905), Section 7/'Gramanatham', if government
property/Suit for declaration of title, Scope, C.P.C., Section 79.
Held: appellants filed the suit, praying to declare that the notice, issued by the defendant is
illegal, arbitrary and non est in law and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant
and others from, in any manner, interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the plaint
schedule mentioned property.
Para 2
It is clear that 'Gramanatham' cannot be considered, ipso facto, as Government property - Once
it is found that item No.1 of the suit schedule mentioned property is classified as
'Gramanatham', it should be held that it does not belong to the Government - There can be no
doubt that the defendant cannot invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment
Act, 1905 - Notice issued by the defendant, under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, is invalid in the eye
of law - Hence, there is no necessity to implead the Government as a party to the suit, since
the appellants had not filed the suit for declaration of their title, in respect of the suit property
- Section 79 of the Act would not be applicable to the present case. Para 29 It has been
admitted by the appellants that item No.2 of the suit schedule mentioned property is a
poramboke land, the defendant would be entitled to invoke the procedures prescribed, under
Section 7."
Para 30
(4) In the case of Muthammal (died) & another v. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
the Collector of Salem District, Salem. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal,
Salem District reported in 2006-3-L.W. 361 , in para-13 as follows:
"13. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the suit properties are grama natham
lands. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel no patta will be issued in respect of
grama natham and the first occupier is the owner of the particular portion of land. Though
D.Ws 1 and 2 have deposed that the suit 1 and 2 properties were vacant sites, D.W.1 admitted
that there is a hut used for keeping haystack. He has also admitted that there were houses
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

around the suit properties. It is very unfortunate that to prove that the plaintiff was not in
possession of the suit properties no documentary proof in the nature of revenue records or
registers have not been produced by the defendants. Even the fasalis mentioned by D.W.1
relates to the period after filing of the suit. D.W.2 in his evidence admits that 36 cents is in
possession of the plaintiff."
(5) In the case of M.S.Krishnan (Died) and 26 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu rep.
by the District Collector Salem. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/O, the Revenue
Divisional Office, Salem. 3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Fort Main Road, Salem. 4.
Arulmigu Sri Mariamman Koil Devasthanam rep. by the President Secretary and
Treasurer of the Trustees reported in 2001-2-L.W. 723 , in para-6 as follows:
"6. The learned counsel for the appellant very vehemently and strenuously contended that the
provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 (hereinafter called as the Act'), cannot at all be
invoked in respect of the land in question. According to him, Section 2 of the Act exempts the
applicability of the Act to 'Temple sites' or house sites or backyards etc. He would further
contend that even if the property was to be considered as Grama Natham, the plaintiffs were
entitled to continue in possession and no action could be taken to remove them under Land
Encroachment Act. For this proposition, strong reliance is placed on the judgment of
E.Padmanabhan, J. in (1998) 3 L.W.603 (Thillaivanam and another v. the District
Collector, Chengai Anna Dist. At Kanchipuram and others) in respect of his contention
that provisions of the land encroachment Act cannot be invoked in respect of Grama Natham."
23. Per contra, the respondent/appellant produced the following judgments before the learned First
Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram as follows:
"In the case of Syed Abdul Jabbar v. 1. The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town
Panchayat, Denkanikottai, Dharmapuri District and two others reported in 2010 (3)
TLNJ 643 (Civil)
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1958, Section 170 suit for recovery of possession Grama Natham
land from Government - decreed and the first appellate Court reversed the decree - on further
appeal High Court held that 'Grama Natham' is ground set apart for houses in village - further
held that unless the same not assigned occupier has no right payment of house tax or
professional tax would not confer any ownership - judgment of first appellate court confirmed -
Second appeal dismissed."
24. Considering all the case cited supra, when the petitioners/plaintiffs was issued patta by the 3rd
respondent/Tahsildar on 25.05.1990 by recognising their continuous possession and enjoyment of the
property, the order of the learned First Appellate Judge by setting aside the order in I.A.No.45 of
2010 by stating the petitioner is not in possession of the property is totally wrong. The trial Court
himself has allowing I.A.No.45 of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010 dated 07.09.2010, by considering the
petitioners possession, this Court finds that the petitioners/plaintiffs is in absolute possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule of property. Hence, this Court warranting necessity for the
interference in the order passed in C.M.A.No.8 of 2010, dated 22.03.2011, on the file of the learned
First Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, accordingly the same is liable to be set aside.
25. In the result:
(a) this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in CMA.No.8 of 2010,
dated 22.03.2011, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, and the
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Venkatraman J
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

order in I.A.No.45 of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010, dated 07.09.2010, on the file of the learned
Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur, is restored and the injunction is granted till the disposal
of the suit.
(b) the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, is directed to take up the suit on
day to day basis, without giving any adjournment to either parties and to dispose the suit
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the
parties are hereby directed to give their fullest cooperation for early disposal of the suit. No
costs.
.