WP/42548/2026 of R.NEDUNCHEZHIYAN Vs The District collector on 15 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ petition has been instituted challenging the final order passed by the District Collector, Dharmapuri under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. Authorities identified encroachments in “Nilaviyal Pathai” (cart- track) as per the revenue records. Petitioner claims that it is a patta land and therefore, classifying the said portion of the land as encroachment is incorrect. Authorities cannot evict the petitioners, since it is a patta land.

WP No. 42548 of 2026

3. Perusal of the order impugned dated 03.10.2026 would show that an elaborate enquiry was conducted by the District Collector by affording opportunities to the parties. Even the appellate authority/District Collector found that the subject land is a patta land, which belongs to the petitioner. However, in the revenue records, a public pathway has been created through patta land for the benefit of the public and to reach their respective lands. District Collector considered the fact that Village Survey No.480/1 extending 0.03.00 hectares remains as a patta land but it is classified as “Bhusthiti pathai”. In natham village Survey No.478/15, a portion has been stated as’ well’. Since it is classifed as Bhusthiti pathai” “cart-tract”, the land vests with the Government in view of RSO 26 Clause 15. “15. Encroachment non plan-marked details:- A planmarked channel or pathway running in a patta land is a Government land. Eviction of encroachments in such lands need be invoked only in cases where the encroachment has interfered with the plan marked detail so as to close it 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,

WP No. 42548 of 2026

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.”

4. In view of the fact that a particular pathway has been classified as Bhusthiti pathai” i.e., a public pathway, removal of encroachment in the public pathway cannot be construed as infirm. District Collector elaborately considered and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner citing RSO 26 Clause 15, and this Court does not find any perversity in respect of the decision taken.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

1. The District collector District collector office Dharmapuri Salem Main Road Dharmapuri District -635 303

WP No. 42548 of 2026

2. The Assistant Collector District collector office Dharmapuri Salem Main Road Dharmapuri District -635 303

3. The Tahsildar Taluk office Dharmapuri Dharmapuri District -635 303

4. The Revenue Divisional officer Revenue Department office, Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District -635 303

5. The Revenue Inspector Collector campus Dharmapuri District -635 303

6. The Village Administrative officer Kadakathur panchayat Kadakathur village, Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District -635 303

7. The President Kadakathur panchayat office Kadakathur village, Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri District -635 303

WP No. 42548 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. GD WP No. 42548 of 2026 15-10-2026