Madras High Court Rules Against Privatisation Of Natham Lands, Says It Can Be Allotted Only To Poor Landless Or For Public Use

In doing so, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took a view different from that taken by a single judge holding that when an occupation of natham land is accepted by the State, it would become private property and there would be no encroachment.

The bench observed that if title on the natham land was to be conferred on mere occupation of a person, some greedy individuals would alone occupy the lands illegally for their unjust gains. The court emphasised that natham lands were meant for dwelling and should be allotted to the poor or used for public purpose.

“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,” the court said.

The court added that the natham lands were to be assigned as House Sites under Revenue Standing Order 21. As per RSO 21, 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 order further says that “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.”

The court thus held that no one could occupy a natham land and declare himself to be the owner as against the rights of another. The court added that ownership, right to possess, control and use, could be granted only by the sovereign power under law.

“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 court said.

The court was hearing an appeal against an order of single judge directing the Tahsildar (Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi Dist) to issue patta in favour of one Elumalai. On appeal, the Tahsildar argued that the land in question was classified as a Government Poromboke Vacant Natham and that Elumalai was not entitled to patta for Natham land.

The Tahsildar also submitted that Elumalai was an encroacher who had utilised the land for constructing a commercial building for personal gains. Thus, he claimed that Elumalai had not approached the court with clean hands.

Elumalai, on the other hand, argued that he had purchased the Natham land. He also argued that government could not claim ownership over the Natham lands. Arguing that Natham land were meant for construction of houses, he contended that Revenue officials had no power to raise objection.

The court traced the history of interpretation of grama natham land and noted that since time immemorial, these lands were assigned to the houseless poor.

Highlighting the Revenue Standing Orders, and the decisions rendered by full court of the High Courts, the court noted that Elumalai was not a landless poor and already owner lands and house. The court also noted that Elumalai had created bogus and fraudulent documents by manipulating revenue records with the collusion of revenue officials

Thus, the court set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.M.Ganesan, Mr.S.Swami Subramaniam Standing Counsel For TANGEDCO

Case Title: The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199

Case No: W.A.No.1014 of 2025