No One Can Occupy Natham Land & Declare Himself As Owner Against Right Of Other Subjects Under Sovereign Authority: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that no one can occupy a Natham land and declare himself/herself to be the owner as against the right of other subjects under the sovereign authority.

The Court held thus in a Writ Appeal preferred by the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District against the Order passed in a Writ Petition.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar observed, “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 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.”

The Bench said that no person can be allowed to claim title or ownership of the land in the absence of the authority of law and mere occupation of the land, including Natham land, would not confer title or ownership in the absence of any authority of law. It added by saying that the ownership or title must be established legally, and mere possession would be insufficient.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) R. Ramanlaal appeared for the Appellant while Advocate M. Ganesan appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The first Respondent had instituted writ proceedings seeking an electricity service connection for the disputed subject property from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The other Respondents-authorities representing the TNEB called for an information from the Appellant-Tahsildar about the subject land. In response, the Appellant informed that the land is classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Natham”. Relying on the Appellant’s report, the authorities rejected the Respondent’s application seeking electricity service connection. Consequently, the Respondent filed the Writ Petition challenging the order of rejection.

The Single Judge impleaded the Appellant as the 3rd Respondent in the Writ Petition and then issued a direction to grant patta in favour of the first Respondent. On examining the documents submitted by the Respondent, the Appellant found them to be forged and fabricated. A report was submitted to the District Collector who in turn passed an Order refusing to issue patta in Respondent’s favour. The Appellant preferred an Appeal mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given by the Writ Court before issuing a direction to grant patta. The Division Bench remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration. The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Appellant to issue patta in Respondent’s favour. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an Intra-Court Appeal.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “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.”

The Court was of the view that the Appellant could establish that the first 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.

“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. … 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”, it further noted.

The Court remarked that Natham lands are meant for dwelling purposes and to be allotted by Revenue authorities to the poor landless people in terms of Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 21 or for public usage.

“In the present case, the 1st 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”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Order.

Cause Title- Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District v. T. Elumalai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1238)

Appearance:

Appellant: AAG R. Ramanlaal and Additional Government Pleader (AGP) T. Arun Kumar.

Respondents: Advocate M. Ganesan and Standing Counsel S. Swami Subramaniam.

Click here to read/download the Judgment