Plaintiff sued for mandatory injunction to remove a godown built by Panchayat authorities on land he purchased in 1979. Courts found he never possessed the property; an unoccupied grama natham may be taken over and assigned by the Government. Second appeal dismissed, affirming reversal of trial court decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.A.No.121 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.121 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.2489 of 2021
A.Shanmugam …Appellant
Vs
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in A.S.No.02 of 2014 dated 16.12.2019 allowing the appeal and
1/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
reversing the judgment passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankari in O.S.No.367 of 2004 dated 28.09.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
For Respondent-1: Mr.C.Selvam, Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent-2: Mr.R.Siddhartaan, Government Advocate
For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Naresh Kumar
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.
of the District Munsif, Sankari for mandatory injunction against the
defendants to remove the construction put up by them in the suit
2/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property under a Sale Deed dated 02.03.1979. The suit property was a vacant site measuring 4 cents comprised in S.No.201/1 of Pakkanadu Village. This property is described as a natham property. The property was purchased from one Koothappa Nadar and from the date of the purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
(ii) The plaintiff would submit that a month before the filing of the suit, the second defendant, namely, the Chairman, Panchayat Union, Edaappadi, at the behest of the political parties, was trying to put up a construction on the suit property with the help of the third defendant. They had also put up a godown in the said property. The plaintiff would submit that the act of the defendants is a case of encroachment since the property, which is a natham property, belongs to the plaintiff, he having purchased the same under a registered Sale
3/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
Deed.
4/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
5/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
vjph;thjpfs; TWtJ rhpah>
Since the issues and the additional issues appear to be connected with each other, the issues were re-framed as follows:-
1/ thjp nfhUk; epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lis ghpfhuk; thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toajh>/
6/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
as P.W2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendants had examined one Velayudham/Village Administrative Officer of Pakkanadu Village as D.W1 and one Selvam/Secretary of Pakkanadu Village as D.W2 and marked Exs.B1 to B6. The Commissioner's report, plan and Surveyor's plan have been marked as Exs.C1 to C3 respectively. The learned District Munsif, Sankari, held that the reclassification of the land from Government Natham Poromboke to Natham Pattai Poromboke has been done without following the procedure and therefore, the construction put up by the defendants have to necessarily be removed. Therefore, the suit was decreed. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants had filed A.S.No.2 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari. The learned Judge held that the construction had commenced even much prior to the filing of the suit, i.e on 27.08.2004. The suit had been amended only in the year 2008. Further, the appellate Court observed that the trial Court had overlooked the fact that the property has already been reclassified as
7/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
Natham Pattai Poromboke, belonging to the Government. Since the land belonged to the Government, the Government had proceeded to put up the godown, one of its many welfare schemes. That apart, the plaintiff has never been in possession of the property and except for the sale deed, there is no other document to show his possession. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. Challenging the said judgment and decree, this second appeal is filed.
8/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
property during the reclassification has been described as natham pattai poromboke and therefore, since it has been unoccupied, the Government has utilized the same for a public purpose, namely, to put up a godown for storing food grains. It is only when the construction had been put up that the plaintiff for the first time has come forward with the suit in question. The plaintiff as P.W1 has clearly admitted that he has not produced any document to show his possession of the suit property. It is also not his case that he has been enjoying the suit property as part of his house or his agricultural land. The Courts below has taken note of the fact that the plaintiff has not even produced a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The plaintiff has also not been able to prove his predecessor-in-title's possession to the suit property. The lower appellate Court has also observed that the description of the property, particularly the western boundary, as shown in the sale deed-Ex.A1 and as found on site differ,
9/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
which factor has not been taken note of by the trial Court. The appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has not produced any document from the year 1979 to show that he has at any point in time occupied the suit property. In his plaint, the plaintiff has submitted that his name has been mutated in the revenue records, but he has not produced any document to show that he is in possession of the property. Insofar as the natham properties are concerned, once a person is in occupation and enjoyment of the property, the Court cannot take possession of the same. However, in the case of an unoccupied natham, the Government becomes the custodian of the property and has the right to grant an assignment. In the instant case, the defendants have exercised this right. There is no quarrel about the fact that in the case of grama natham, the property does not vest with the Government and the Government cannot take over the same. Grama Natham are house sites meant for construction of houses or using it for such purpose ancillary to the residential use of
10/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
the occupier. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has kept the property unoccupied and unutilized from the year 1979 and it has become an unoccupied grama natham, thereby vesting a right on the Government to take over and assign the same. That apart, the plaintiff has no property near the suit property to show that he is enjoying the suit property contiguous to his property. Therefore, the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative. However, the suit property has lost its character as a grama natham by reason of it being unoccupied and unutilised for several decades thereby assuming the character of an unoccupied grama natham
S.A.No.121 of 2021
substantial question No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff. However, taking note of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession of the suit property from the date of his purchase in the year 1979 till the filing of the suit and as the property has lost its character of a grama natham, the defendants have taken over the property and utilised it for the storage of food grains, which is for the public purpose. The lower appellate has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. I see no reason to interfere with the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.02.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order srn
12/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
To
13/14
S.A.No.121 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
S.A.No.121 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.2489 of 2021
22.02.2024
14/14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved possession of the suit property from the date of purchase in 1979 so as to claim mandatory injunction against Government construction.
Whether an unoccupied grama natham vests a right in the Government to take over and assign it for public purpose.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Shanmugam
State Represented by The District Collector, Salem, Salem
Chairman, Panchayat Union, Edappadi Panchayat Union Office, Edappadi
Block Development Officer, Edappadi Panchayat Union Office, Edappadi
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
