The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that writ petitions under Article 226 challenging final eviction notices issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 are not maintainable where a statutory appeal lies under Section 10. This ruling underscores the foundational principle that courts must not entertain direct constitutional challenges when an effective alternative remedy exists.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Selvakumar S/o Murugesan, challenged an eviction order dated 12.09.2025 issued by the 5th respondent, the Revenue Tahsildar of Thirukuzhakundram Taluk, under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The order directed the removal of the petitioner’s commercial establishment situated on land classified as grama natham - a category of village common land held in trust by the Government for public or residential use. The petitioner claimed continuous occupation since prior to 2010 and asserted that the land, being grama natham, was not subject to Government control and that his use as a shop was lawful.
Key Facts
- The petitioner operates a commercial shop on land classified as grama natham in Thirukuzhakundram Taluk, Chengalpet District.
- The land is not privately owned but is Government land under the administrative control of the Revenue Department.
- The petitioner has not obtained any formal assignment, lease, or permission under the Revenue Standing Orders (RSOs) for commercial use.
- The 5th respondent issued a final notice under Section 6 of the 1905 Act on 12.09.2025, directing eviction for unauthorized occupation.
- The petitioner did not file an appeal under Section 10 of the 1905 Act before approaching the High Court.
- The petitioner contends that grama natham lands are community property and cannot be subject to eviction, citing Kaman @ Kamatchi v. District Collector (2026).
Procedural History
- 12.09.2025: Final eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the Revenue Tahsildar.
- 28.10.2025: Writ Petition (W.P.No.39410 of 2025) filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226.
- 06.03.2026: Full Bench judgment in Kaman @ Kamatchi v. District Collector delivered, cited by petitioner to support claim of lawful occupation.
- 20.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner:
- Argued that grama natham lands are communal property, not Government property in the strict sense, and thus outside the purview of the 1905 Act.
- Relied on the 2026 Full Bench judgment in Kaman @ Kamatchi to assert that long-term occupation of grama natham for commercial purposes cannot be treated as encroachment.
- Claimed that the Government has no right to evict occupants who have been in possession for over a decade.
For the Respondents:
- Contended that grama natham lands are Government property as defined under Section 2 of the 1905 Act and subject to regulation under Revenue Standing Orders.
- Cited RSO 21(1) and RSO 26(1) to establish that such lands are meant for dwelling houses of the landless poor, not commercial use.
- Emphasized that unauthorized occupation, even if prolonged, constitutes encroachment under the Act.
- Stated that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 10 of the 1905 Act.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the eviction order dated 12.09.2025 and restrain respondents from interfering with his possession of the land.
The Legal Issue
Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable to challenge a final eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 10 is available?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the 2026 Full Bench judgment in Kaman @ Kamatchi v. District Collector to argue that grama natham lands are not Government property in the sense contemplated by the 1905 Act. He contended that long-standing occupation, even without formal assignment, creates a legitimate expectation of continued use. He further invoked Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution to argue that the State must ensure equitable distribution of land resources and that eviction of long-term occupants contradicts this principle. He asserted that the remedy under Section 10 is illusory and that the High Court must intervene to prevent injustice.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader argued that grama natham lands are unequivocally "lands which are the property of Government" under Section 2 of the 1905 Act, as clarified by RSO 26(1). He emphasized that the Act provides a complete code for dealing with encroachment, including a detailed appellate mechanism under Section 10, which allows for factual inquiry and opportunity of hearing. He cited Madathapu Ramaya v. Secretary of State for India (1904) and Taluk Board, Dindigul v. Venkatarama Ayyar (1923) to establish that the Government’s regulatory authority over grama natham is well-settled. He further argued that commercial use of such land violates RSO 21(1), which restricts assignment to residential purposes only.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the well-established principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists. The Court observed that Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 provides a clear appellate mechanism before the District Collector, who is empowered to conduct a full inquiry into the nature of occupation, evidence of possession, and compliance with RSOs.
"The High Court cannot decide the disputed questions of facts relating to civil rights and therefore, the writ petition filed without exhausting the appellate remedy is not maintainable."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Kaman @ Kamatchi, noting that the judgment was not unanimous and that the dissenting opinion rendered it non-binding. The Court held that the binding precedent remains the 1923 Full Bench judgment in Taluk Board, Dindigul v. Venkatarama Ayyar, which unequivocally affirmed the Government’s authority to regulate grama natham lands.
The Court further examined RSO 21(1) and RSO 26(1), concluding that these provisions clearly define grama natham as Government land subject to assignment for residential purposes only, and that unauthorized occupation - even for commercial use - is actionable under the 1905 Act. The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate under Article 39(b) and (c) does not confer a right to retain illegally occupied land but rather obligates the State to ensure equitable distribution, which includes reclaiming encroached land for public benefit.
The Court also clarified that "occupation" under the Act includes any act of appropriation, whether temporary or permanent, and that running a shop on such land constitutes a clear encroachment.
The Verdict
The writ petition is dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to avail the statutory remedy under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 renders the petition non-maintainable. The eviction order dated 12.09.2025 remains in force pending the outcome of the appeal before the District Collector. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Exhaustion of Statutory Remedy Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must file an appeal under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
- Writ petitions filed prematurely will be dismissed without adjudication on merits.
- Courts will not entertain challenges to factual determinations made by Revenue authorities when a statutory appeal exists.
Commercial Use of Grama Natham Lands Is Per Se Illegal
- Any use of grama natham land for commercial purposes, even if longstanding, violates RSO 21(1) and constitutes encroachment.
- Long-term possession does not confer title or immunity from eviction under the 1905 Act.
- Revenue authorities may proceed with eviction without prior notice of assignment, as the land remains Government property.
Precedent Controls Over Recent Split Judgments
- Split Full Bench judgments do not override established precedent unless unanimously affirmed.
- The 1923 Full Bench ruling remains binding until overruled by a larger bench.
- Courts must follow National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi to determine binding precedent in case of conflicting judgments.
