3.According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land measuring about 3.26 acres situated in old Survey No.105/2, Puthur Village, Erode District. The said old Survey No.105/2 has been reclassified as R.S.No.215 and 216 and again it has been sub divided as R.S.No.215/1 to 10 and 216/1 to 10. The petitioner's ancestors have formed the subject matter cart track measuring 6 cents in R.S.No. 215/9 to reach their other portions in R.S.No.216/1, 4A, 4B and 215/2 from east-west Kanagapuram Road. The remaining extent of the cart track measuring 9 cents in R.S.No.215/9 is being used as an access by the other pattadhars and it has been converted as a road, over which the petitioner has not claimed any title. The second respondent has occupied an extent of 6.10 cents in R.S.No.216/2 without any prior title over the property. He has created a self- serving settlement deed dated 13.05.2014 in the name of his son S.P.Thiyagarajan. In the said settlement deed, the second respondent has purposely described western boundary as a “public street” unmindful of the fact that the said property in R.S.No.215/9 is petitioner's private property. The subject matter cart track measuring 6 cents situated in R.S.No.215/9 is petitioner's separate property which is evident from the patta No.1167 issued by the first respondent. However, the second respondent has started giving pinpricks under the guise of claiming right over the petitioner private cart track. Hence, in order to avoid any mischief at the hands of the second respondent, the petitioner has erected a compound wall on his private property bearing R.S.No.215/9 in the month of June, 2015. On 24.11.2015, the second respondent gave a petition to the first respondent alleging that the subject matter of 6 cents in R.S.No.215/9 is also a common passage, since it has been described as “Nilaviyal Vandi Pathai” in the Revenue Records. On the basis of the said petition, the first respondent has called for a report from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Modakurichi. On receipt of a notice from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner has appeared before him. But without examining the petitioner, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar has submitted a report to the first respondent stating that the said passage is a public pathway and based on the said report, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to remove the gate and compound wall, as if he has encroached the Government land.
