Disposed¶40

Seethalakshmi, (Died) v. the District Collector

Mandamus – Cart track/pathway

Madras HC5 Nov 2025WP(MD)/21882/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (G.R. Swaminathan J., 05.11.2025), W.P(MD)No.21882 of 2016: writ of mandamus under Article 226 seeking restraint against trespass/road-laying over S.Nos.730/2A, 731/1A, 731/1B1, 731/1B2, 735/1, 735/2, 736/1, 736/2 of Enjar Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District; cart-track deviation reflected in FMB, unmutated revenue records; disposed of by recording revenue authorities' stand on maintenance of the deviated boundary route and corresponding mutation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by recording the respondents' stand that only the deviated route along the boundary of the petition-mentioned survey numbers will be maintained and that revenue records will be correspondingly mutated; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶40

Seethalakshmi, (Died) Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue restraining the respondents from trespassing on the petitioner's lands in S.Nos.730/2A, 731/1A, 731/1B1, 731/1B2, 735/1, 735/2, 736/1 and 736/2, Enjar Village, Sivakasi Taluk, or laying any road therein. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Court recorded the stand of the revenue authorities (respondents) that only the deviated route running along the boundary of the petition-mentioned survey numbers will be maintained, and that the revenue records will be correspondingly mutated.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Recording the stand of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

Key takeaways

On factual backdrop found from the original FMB that a cart track had cut across the petitioner's lands, that the route was deviated along the boundary lines about thirty years ago and that revenue records were not correspondingly mutated, the Court treated the recorded stand of the respondents as sufficient and declined to direct restoration of the original cart track through the lands.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus - Cart track/pathway - Petitioner sought restraint against respondents trespassing upon lands in S.Nos.730/2A, 731/1A, 731/1B1, 731/1B2, 735/1, 735/2, 736/1 and 736/2, Enjar Village, Sivakasi Taluk - Original FMB disclosed a cart track cutting across the lands; the route had been deviated to run along the boundary lines about thirty years ago without corresponding mutation of revenue records - Dispute with local villagers led to a claim for restoration of the original cart track - Revenue authorities clarified that only the deviated boundary route will be maintained and that revenue records will be correspondingly mutated - Writ petition disposed of recording that stand; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21882 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.21882 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15632 and 18072 of 2016

Seethalakshmi (Died)

S.Kannan

... Petitioner

(Petitioner is substituted vide order dated 16.02.2021 in W.M.P.(MD)No.2726 of 2024 in W.P.(MD)No.21882 of 2016 by BPJ)

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶14

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

3.The Block Development Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

4.The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶17

5.The Inspector Of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.21882 of 2016

¶21

Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶22

6.S.Venkatesh ... Respondents (R6 is impleaded vide order dated 16.02.2021 in W.M.P.(MD)No.2726 of 2024 in W.P.(MD)No.21882 of 2016 by BPJ)

¶23

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents or his mens, servants, agents, nominees, assignees, administrators, successor(s) -in-office, its contractors or any other public persons claiming through them either directly or indirectly from trespassing in the writ petitioners land in S.Nos.730/2A, 731/1A, 731/1B1, 731/1B2, 735/1, 735/2, 736/1 and 736/2 Enjar Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District to construct to lay any road or for any other purpose.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran,

¶26

Government Advocate for R1 to R4. Mr.A.Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R5.

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2/6

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.21882 of 2016

¶32

2.The petitioner wants this Court to restrain the respondents from

¶33

making any claim across the lands comprised in the petition mentioned survey numbers.

¶34

3.It is seen from the original FMB that a cart tract cut across the petitioner's lands. In order to avoid such parceling, the route was deviated and was taken through the boundary lines. But the revenue records were not correspondingly mutated. This deviation had taken place even some thirty years. It appears that on account of some dispute with the local villagers, some persons made a claim that the original cart track should be restored. It is this that has given raise to the present cause of action.

¶35

4.The revenue authorities are clear that the deviated route which runs on the boundary of the petition mentioned survey numbers alone will be maintained and that revenue record will also be correspondingly mutated.

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.21882 of 2016

¶39

5.Recording the stand of the respondents, this writ petition is

¶40

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions

¶41

are closed.