Gramakantam is known as Gramanatham.save also in so far as they are temple sites or owned as housesite or backyard" excludes the land on which temples and houses are constructed; including the backyards.A house cannot exist in vacuum and invariably it has to be on land. Law does not permit recognition of rights with regard to structures excluding the land on which they were made. This approach runs contrary to the purport of the definition of immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act. The plot of land, on which the construction is made to the knowledge, can be deemed to have been assigned, particularly when the Government paid compensation for the structure.the expression 'Gramakantam' connotes the use of the land viz., place, where houses can be constructed, in contrast to other uses such as agriculture, grazing, tanks etc. While in respect of agricultural lands and vacant lands, land revenue is levied, what is payable in respect of house sites is the property tax, and it is to be paid to the concerned local authority, such as Gram Panchayat.On this basis, the Court held that the land which forms part of Gramanatham does not vest in the Government by operation of Section 3(b) of the Estates Act. The relevant portion reads: 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. under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Section 58(1) thereof directs that all porambokes viz., grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, carts tanks etc. vest in the Gram Panchayat. Sub-section (2) thereof directs that the Government may, at any time, by notification in the A.P.Gazzette, direct that any porambokes referred to in sub- section (1) shall cease to vest in the Grampanchayat. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that there is no mention of Gramakantam in sub-section (1) and thereby, the question of such lands vesting in the Government does not arise. That judgment cannot be treated as an authority for the proposition that Gramakantam vests in the Government. The scrutiny was restricted to the question as to whether the Gramakantam vests in the Gramapanchayat. Since the expression was not utilized in sub-section (1) of Section 58, the question was answered in the negative. That however would not lead to an inference, much less a conclusion, that Gramakantam vests in the Government.