Dismissed¶62

C.Palanisamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC18 Sept 2025WP/27537/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Poosthithi pathai; Niliviyal pathai; Nilaviyal kaalpathai; pathway through patta land is government property; Revenue Standing Order 26(15); plan-marked pathway; encroachment; writ of certiorari; Article 226; Revenue Divisional Officer Sankari; Tahsildar Edappadi; Salem District; Koranampatty Village; SF.No.52/6, 0.04.0 hectares; patta No.3134; civil court decree versus revenue classification; principles of natural justice (petitioner not heard); W.P. No. 8495 of 2024 followed; W.P. No. 29115 of 2022; police protection; public pathway usage; dismissal, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Niliviyal pathai / poosthithi pathai running through patta land shall be a government property. ¶38

C.Palanisamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the first respondent classifying the land in SF.No.52/6 to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares as poosthithi pathai (and restraining the petitioner from interfering with public use thereof) suffers from any infirmity or illegality, notwithstanding the petitioner's civil court decrees in respect of the same property.

¶61

Court's answer

Niliviyal pathai / poosthithi pathai running through patta land shall be a government property.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Though the petitioner owned the subject land under patta, he cannot prevent the general public from using it as a pathway; at the same time, except the petitioner, no one can claim any title over the said property.

¶40

Key takeaways

Though the petitioner lodged the complaint, the first respondent rightly ordered to classify the disputed portion of the land as poosthithi pathai / nilaviyal pathai.ratio¶61
The Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.08.2019.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2019 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari (Na.Ka.1171/2019(B)) classifying 0.04.0 hectares in SF.No.52/6, Koranampatty Village, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District as poosthithi pathai and restraining the petitioner from interfering with public use of the pathway. Held: a niliviyal pathai / poosthithi pathai running through patta land is a government property; the patta owner cannot prevent general public use of the pathway, though none other than him can claim title over it. Following the Court's earlier decision in W.P. No. 8495 of 2024 (which applied Revenue Standing Order 26(15)), the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs. The petitioner's decrees in OS.No.158 of 2012 (declaration) and OS.No.184 of 2012 (permanent injunction, judgment and decree dated 23.01.2018), and the pendency of respondents 3 to 10's appeal without interim orders, were recorded in the factual background.

¶1

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.09.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.27537 of 2019

¶6

C.Palanisamy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari, Salem District

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Edappadi, Salem District

¶10

3.Sellamuthu

¶11

4.Pappathi

¶12

5.Jothi

¶13

6.Palanisamy

¶14

7.Selvi

¶15

8.Seerangan 9.Veerammal 10.Vijaya ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.1171/2019(B) dated 20.08.2019 and quash the same

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

¶18

For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.G.Velu, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

1/10

¶20

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

¶21

For R3 to 10 : Mr.N.Manoharan

¶22

W.P.No.27537 of 2019

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed

¶25

by the first respondent dated 20.08.2019 thereby directing to classify the property comprised in survey No.52/6 to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares as poosthithi pathai since the petitioner has no right to interfere with the enjoyment of the poosthithi pathai by the general public.

¶26

2 . The petitioner owned property comprised in SF.No.52

¶27

situated at Koranampatty Village, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District to an extent of 1.91 ½ cents by way of partition dated 05.09.2009 registered vide document No.2596 of 2009. While being so, respondents 3 to 10 disturbed the possession and enjoyment of the said property and as such the petitioner had filed suit for declaration in OS.No.158 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari. It was decreed in his favour. While pending the suit, the sixth respondent and others filed suit in OS.No.184 of 2012 against the petitioner on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner

¶28

2/10

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 and dismissed the suit filed by the sixth respondent by the judgment and

¶31

decree dated 23.01.2018. Even then, respondents 3 to 10 interfered with

¶32

the possession and enjoyment of the subject property and as such, the petitioner filed complaint before the first respondent. The first respondent after conducting enquiry, declared that the subject property comprised in SF.No.52 to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares situated at Koranampatty Village, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District with three meters breadth to the length of 131.6 meters as poosthithi pathai as per the revenue records and directed the revenue officials to reclassify the same as Niliviyal pathai / poosthithi pathai and also injuncted the petitioner from interfering with the general public usage as pathway.

¶33

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner lodged complaint, he was not heard by the first respondent before passing the order. It is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner obtained decree in respect of the very same property for declaration in OS.No.158 of 2012. Though respondents 3 to 10 filed appeal suit, it is pending without any interim orders. When the civil court has decreed the suit, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, that too on the complaint 3/10

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.27537 of 2019

¶36

lodged by the petitioner.

¶37

4 . On perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent and on

¶38

the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 10, it is revealed that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in survey No.52/2, 52/3, 52/4, 52/5 & 52/6 situated at Koranampatty Village, Edappady Taluk to an extent of 1.85 acres under patta No.3134. The land in survey No.52/6 to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares(10 cents) is not under the petitioner’s enjoyment and possession since it has been used as pathway for many decades by the general public including respondents 3 to 10 herein in order to get approach to the Koranampatty to Dathapuram main road, which runs through the patta land of the petitioner and 8 others land. No doubt the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, but as per the revenue records, in survey No.52/3, there is poosthithi pathai to an extent of 0.04.0 hectares with the width of 3 meters and the length of 131.6 meters. It is settled law that niliviyal pathai / poosthithi pathai running through patta land shall be a government property. When a piece of land is used for pathway and is classified as nilaviyal pathai/ poosthithi pathai, even though it is running through a private land, it has to be 4/10

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 considered only as a Government land. Though the petitioner owned the subject land under patta, the petitioner cannot prevent the general public from using the same as a pathway. At the same time, except the petitioner, no one can claim any title over the said property.

¶41

5 . This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in WP.no.8495 of 2024 dated 21.08.2024, wherein this Court held as follows:

¶42

5 . On perusal of the counter filed by the third respondent and also on hearing the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent revealed that, admittedly the land comprised in survey no.457/1 admeasuring 15 ares i.e. 37.5 cents is classified as 'nilaviyal kaalpathai' as per the revenue records. However, the petitioner obstructed the same by cultivating in the said 'nilaviyal kaalpathai'. Therefore, one T.K.Prabakaran filed a petition before the Tahsildar to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner in survey no.457/1. However, it was rejected on the sole ground that the civil suit in OS.No.158 of 2014 filed by the petitioner was pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perundurai. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and by its order dated 04.01.2021, after conducting fulfledged enquiry, the Tahsildar, Perundurai was directed to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner

¶43

5/10

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 in the land comprised in survey no.457/1, 458/1, 459/2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the second respondent. The second respondent conducted enquiry and as per the revenue records, it was found that the subject property comprised in survey No.457/1 is classified as 'nilaviyal kaalpathai' and in the light of Revenue Standing Order 26(15), passed order dated 10.03.2022 thereby confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and also directed the Tahsildar, Perundurai to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner in survey No.457/1. It is relevant to extract the Revenue Standing Order 26(15) hereunder:

¶46

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

¶47

5.1 Thus, it is clear that the pathway running in a patta land is a Government land. The eviction of encroachment in such lands need be invoked only in case of

¶48

6/10

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 pathways, 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. Therefore, 'nilaviyal kaalpathai' situated in survey no.457/1 is a Government land. It is used by the general public as a mud road. In order to make it easy for general public, the third respondent allocated funds and accordingly road has been laid by the fifth respondent as contractor. In fact, the fifth respondent after being awarded contract in his favour, the petitioner obstructed to lay road. Therefore, the fifth respondent approached this court seeking police protection in WP.No.27164 of 2023. This Court by order dated 14.09.2023, directed the concerned jurisdiction police i.e. the fourth respondent herein to provide police protection to enable the fifth respondent to complete the work of laying tar road. Accordingly, the fourth respondent provided police protection and the fifth respondent laid tar road. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while confirming the order passed by the second respondent, in WP.No.29115 of 2022 dated 22.11.2022, observed as follows:

¶51

4. According to the official respondents, when the Revenue Tahsildar, Perundhurai rejected the claim of the 7th respondent for the reason that a Civil Suit is pending, he preferred an appeal dated 09.11.2020 before the 4th respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode. Further, when the 4th respondent allowed the same, the petitioner and his brother T.M.Subramaniam preferred a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Erode and the

¶52

7/10

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 same was dismissed by an order dated 10.03.2022. Challenging the same on the ground that the extent of the land for the purpose of demarcating the 'Nilaviyal Kaalpathai' has not been mentioned, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶55

5. Further, according to the official respondents, the 4th respondent has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid Nilaviyal Kaalpathai is a public pathway and also mentioned the extent of the Nilaviyal Kaalpathai as 458/1 0075 sq.mt. and as per the Revenue Standing Order No.26(15), the patta holders have no right over the property. However, such diversion 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 served need not be treated as encroachment. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner being an encroacher has failed to remove the encroachments on the 'Nilaviyal Kaalpathai' (pathway) which can be used by the 7th respondent and the public.

¶56

6. A perusal of the revenue records clearly shows that the above said property is a 'Nilaviyal Kaalpathai'. Therefore the District Revenue Officer has rightly rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and his brother T.M.Subramaniam. Hence, it is clear that the above said property has been classified as 'Nilaviyal Kaalpathai'. However, according to the petitioner, the extent and identification of the pathway have not been clearly demarcated by the official respondents or by any authority. Therefore, we are of the view that if it is demarcated

¶57

8/10

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.27537 of 2019 by the official respondents, the petitioner cannot have any grievance.

¶60

6 . Thus it is clear that the land comprised in survey no.457/1 to an extent of 37.5 cents is classified as 'nilaviyal kaalpathai' in the revenue records and accordingly, it was demarcated and laid tar road. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any exclusive right over the said 'nilaviyal kaalpathai'. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶61

6 . Therefore, though the petitioner lodged complaint, the first respondent rightly ordered to classify the said portion of the land as poosthithi pathai/ nilaviyal pathai. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is

¶62

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Neutral citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶64

18.09.2025

¶65

9/10

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.No.27537 of 2019