Dismissed

A.Velliyangiri v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC27 Sept 2021WP/1851/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the revocation of patta grants to landless persons, alleging it obstructed a public road. The Court, relying on a field inspection report, found the road was limited in utility to local agriculturalists and concluded the petitioners' rights were unaffected, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition seeking direction not to obliterate the road and maintain it as a public road was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A.Velliyangiri Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. No. of 1851 of 2015
and

¶6

W.M.P. No. 1 of 2015

¶7

1. A.Velliyangiri

¶8

2. A.Angappa Gounder

¶9

3. T.M.Palanisamy

¶10

4. T.M.Subramaniyam

¶11

5. T.M.Avinachiappan

6. M.Rajendran

7. P.Sivakumar

8. P.Senthil Kumar

9. M.Amarapathy 10 .R.Koushika

¶16

... Petitioners

¶17

-vs-

¶18

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
 Represented by its Secretary,
 Revenue Department,

¶19

 Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶20

2. The District Collector,
 Tiruppur District,
 Tiruppur.

¶21

3. The Tahsildar,
 Avinashi Taluk,
 Avinashi, Tiruppur District.... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article226 of the
Constitution of India, paying to issue of Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents herein not to obliterate the existing
Thirumurugan Poondi-Rakkiyapalayam road comprised in Survey No.
488/1 situated at No.54, Rakkiyapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk,

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

Tiruppur District and to maintain the same as a public road.

¶25

For Petitioners: Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel
ForRespondents: Mr.C.Kathiravan,

¶26

 Government Advocate

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The writ on hand is filed to direct the respondents not
to obliterate the existing Thirumurugan Poondi-Rakkiyapalayam
road comprised in Survey No. 488/1 situated at No.54,
Rakkiyapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District and to
maintain the same as a public road.

¶29

2. The petitioners state that the land comprised in
Survey No. 488/1situated at No.54, Rakkiyapalayam Village,
Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District is originally a cart track from
time immemorial leading from Thirumurugan Poondi to
Raakiyapalayam. The said cart track partly came to be laid as a
Black Top Road by the Thirumurugan Poondi Town Panchayat. The
said road from Thirumurugan Poondi to Raakiyapalayam is not only
in existence over several decades but also is being used by all
the villagers of Rakkiyapalayam including the petitioners who own
lands on the immediate Northern side of the said road. The
Southern side of the said road is a river called "Nallar"
comprised in Survey No. 450 and the said land is classified in
the revenue records as River Poramboke. During the rainy season,
water flow in the Nallar River. The Nallar river will flow from
West to East confluence with Noyal River and in between there are
several check dams used for storage of water for irrigation and
drinking purpose.

¶30

3. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the
respondents granted patta in favour of the poor landless people
of that locality.

¶31

4. Raising an objection in respect of the patta granted
in favour of the poor landless people of that locality, the
petitioners contended that abutting the road such patta is
granted. Therefore, the usage of the public road is being
affected. Thus, the patta granted in favour of such landless
people is to be cancelled and the public road must be maintained
for the purpose of public usage for all purposes.

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

5. The sketch produced by the authorities would also show
that the patta granted in respect of the land is falling on the
road. It appears as if that the free usage of the public road is
getting affected. In other words, seeing of the sketch would
reveal that the public road has been allotted for the landless
poor people of that locality affects the right of the public in
the usage of the road.

¶34

6. In view of the said doubt raised both by the learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as this Court, a direction
was issued to the Tahsildar, Avinashi Taluk to conduct a field
inspection and she has submitted a report in respect of the
sketch as well as the present status.

¶35

7. Mrs.K.P.Raghavi, Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Avinashi
Taluk, Tiruppur District is present before this Court along with
the files. The said Tahsildar informed this court that she has
conducted the field inspection and ascertained the present status
of the road as well as its usage.

¶36

8. The Tahsildar made a submission that the road ends
with the agricultural land and there is a "Kootupathai" and
accordingly persons who are using the road has to take a turn in
12 feet road and there is no straight access as per the revenue
records. The road ends and at the end, there is a 12
feet road which is called as "Kootupathai" and that is being
utilized as cart track and for other agricultural purposes.

¶37

9. As far as the grant of patta to the landless poor
people of that locality is concerned, the Tahsildar explained by
stating that the road is widened for usage by the people of that
locality and as of now, the people of that locality are using the
said road which is measured as 22.4 feet. Thus, the road in
question is expanded by way of usage by the people of that
locality and such usage has not been objected by any of the
people of that locality and at present, they are using 22.4 feet
road for the cart truck and for agricultural purposes as the said
road ends with the agricultural land. There is no public
transport services in that road. There is no other public usage
except by the persons who are all having agricultural lands in
that locality.

¶38

10. It is seen that there is no public transport system
being run in that road and that the road is utilized by the

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

common people of that area for other purposes and it is actually
used for the limited purposes by the Agriculturalists of that
locality for transporting the agricultural products and other
related goods. This being the factual position ascertained during
the inspection of the Tahsildar, Avinashi Taluk and a report is
filed before this Court. This court is of an opinion that the
rights of the petitioners are not affected and they are now using
the land which is about 22.4 feet width and therefore, the free
access of the road is not denied. Under these circumstances, it
is unnecessary to disturb the patta granted in favour of the
landless poor people for their benefits by the Government under a
scheme.

¶41

11. This being the factum, the relief as sought for in
the present Writ Petition deserves no merits consideration.
Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

 Sd/-

¶43

 Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

vji / mka

¶47

To

¶48

1. The Secretary,

¶49

 Revenue Department,

¶50

 Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶51

2. The District Collector,

¶52

 Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶53

3. The Tahsildar,

¶54

 Avinashi Taluk,

¶55

 Avinashi, Tiruppur District.

¶56

+1cc to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate, S.R.No.50308

¶57

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.50553

¶58

W.P. No. of 1851 of 2015

¶59

and
W.M.P. No. 1 of 2015

¶60

PMK(CO)

¶61

SB(22/10/2021)

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Velliyangiri v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Velliyangiri v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Maraicar Estates (P) Vs The Commissioner and Secretary

M.Yasmeen Ilyas Vs The Commissioner of Police

C.Lakshmi Vs The Commissioner of Land

Sakthi Murugan Vs Commissioner

K.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

Lord Venkateshwara Engineering Vs The Assistant General Manager