Dismissed¶41

The District Collector v. T.P.Murugesan

Madras HC17 Mar 2025WA(MD)/760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nilaviyal Pathai; patta land crossed by public pathway; plan-marked detail; Revenue Standing Order 26 Clause 15; UDR entry 1984; A Register; topo sketch; land acquisition prerequisite for metal/thar road; public right of way; writ petitioner cannot obstruct pathway; Pudukkottai; Viralimalai; Viruthappatti Village; Survey Nos. 227/3A and 227/3B; W.A.(MD)No.760 of 2022 dismissed; Clause 15 Letters Patent; intervenor Rasu; W.P(MD)No.11614 of 2024 pending; C.M.P(MD)No.6356 of 2022 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed; the Single Judge's restraint against laying a thar road was sustained, with clarifications that the public may use the Nilaviyal Pathai and that any metal/thar road requires acquisition in the manner known to law. ¶41

The District Collector Vs T.P.Murugesan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities can lay a metal or thar road on the Nilaviyal Pathai running across the writ petitioner's patta land without acquiring the land. +2 more

¶36

Court's answer

The authorities cannot lay any metal or thar road on the said land.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Bench will proceed on the existing revenue entry; if the writ petitioner regarded the UDR entry showing the Nilaviyal Pathai as erroneous, he ought to have moved the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer for correction.

¶29

Key takeaways

From the A Register, the topo sketch predating UDR and Clause 15 of Revenue Standing Order 26, the Bench infers that a Nilaviyal Pathai had been running across the writ petitioner's patta land.ratio¶36
Although Survey No.227/3B is patta land, since a Nilaviyal Pathai runs across it, the general public are entitled to use the said pathway.ratio¶36
The order of the learned Single Judge is sustained to the extent it restrains the authority from laying any thar road.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) dismissed by the Division Bench of G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman, JJ. (opinion by G.R. Swaminathan, J.). Although Survey No.227/3B, Viruthappatti Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District is patta land, the A Register records a Nilaviyal Pathai running across it measuring 0.09.5 HAC, and the UDR entry to that effect was published in 1984; a party alleging an erroneous entry ought to seek correction from the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer, and the existing entry will govern. Drawing on Clause 15 of Revenue Standing Order 26 (a plan-marked channel or pathway running in patta land is Government land) and a topo sketch predating UDR, the Bench inferred that the general public are entitled to use the pathway. The Single Judge's order in W.P(MD)No.14898 of 2019 dated 30.04.2021 was sustained to the extent it restrains the authorities from laying any thar road: no metal or thar road can be laid unless the land is acquired in the manner known to law. Conversely, the writ petitioner cannot obstruct the Nilaviyal Pathai or prevent public use of it; its width was inferred to be approximately 8 feet. The intervenor Rasu's independent writ petition W.P(MD)No.11614 of 2024 for removal of encroachment remains pending. No costs; connected C.M.P(MD)No.6356 of 2022 closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.760 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

W.A(MD)No.760 of 2022 and

¶9

C.M.P(MD)No.6356 of 2022

¶10

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer, Viralimalai Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District – 621 316. ... Appellants / Respondents Vs.

¶12

T.P.Murugesan ... Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶13

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.14898 of 2019 dated 30.04.2021.

¶14

For Appellants : Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A.(MD)No.760 of 2022

¶18

Mr.Aju Tagore for intervenor

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

2.T.P.Murugesan filed WP(MD)No.14898 of 2019 to forbear the

¶23

appellants herein from laying metal road in his patta land in Survey Nos. 227/3A and 227/3B situated at Viruthappatti Revenue Village, Settiapaari Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 30.04.2021 by holding that Nilaviyal Pathai was of recent origin and if the authorities want to lay a road, they ought to follow due process of law and acquire tha land through land acquisition proceedings. Challenging the same, this Writ Appeal came to be filed.

¶24

3.Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the District Administration. The learned counsel for the intervenor supported the stand of the appellants. The intervenor / Rasu had independently filed W.P(MD)No.11614 of 2024 seeking removal of encroachment allegedly

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.A.(MD)No.760 of 2022

¶28

made by Thiru.T.P.Murugesan in the petition mentioned survey numbers. The said writ petition is still pending.

¶29

We perused the A Register and other revenue records. Even a bare look at the A Register indicates that Survey No.227/3A is a patta land and in Survey No.227/3B, Viruthappatti Village, a Nilaviyal Pathai runs across measuring an extent of 0.09.5 HAC. The UDR entry in which Survey No.227/3B has been shown as Nilaviyal Pathai had been published sometime in the year 1984. If according to the writ petitioner, it was an erroneous entry, he ought to have moved the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer and got the same corrected. Therefore, we will go only by the existing entry. The learned Additional Government Pleader also produced the topo sketch which predated UDR. It can be seen therefrom that detail marks have been shown across the old Survey No.227.

¶30

5.Our attention was drawn to Clause 15 of Revenue Standing Order 26, which reads as follows:

¶31

“15. Encroachments on plan-marked details:- A plan- marked channel or pathway running in a patta land is a Government land. Eviction of encroachments in such lands need be invoked only in

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.(MD)No.760 of 2022

¶35

cases where the encroacher has interfered with the plan marked detail so as to close its entrance to and exit from his lands. In the case of pathways and cart tracks which have been used by the public till recently, the ryot should not be allowed to shift the course of the details to suit his own convenience. However, such diversions of plan marked channel from its original course, with a view to consolidate his holding or to facilitate irrigation of the portions which would be otherwise severed need not be treated as encroachment."

¶36

6.From these circumstances, we do infer that a Nilaviyal Pathai had been running across the writ petitioner's patta land. It is true that Survey No.227/3B is a patta land. But, since a Nilaviyal Pathai runs across, the consequence is that the general public are entitled to use the said pathway. Since the expression “Nilaviyal Pathai” is mentioned, its dimension can only be approximately 8 feet. But the authorities cannot lay any metal or thar road on the said land. Therefore, we sustain the order of the learned single Judge to the extent it restrains the authority from laying any thar road. If the authorities want to lay any metallic or thar road, they have to acquire the same in the manner known to law. So long as such an acquisition has not taken place, the authorities cannot do so. But then, the writ petitioner also cannot cause any obstruction on the said Nilaviyal Pathai. The writ petitioner cannot prevent the general public from using the Nilaviyal Pathai.

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.760 of 2022

¶40

7.With the aforesaid observations and clarifications, this Writ

¶41

Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]