WP/24226/2026 of K.S.Jagadish Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 September 2026

Order

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.08.2026, this Court has passed the following order:

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the official respondents and perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner had purchased the property in S.No.72/1A4, 72/1A6, 72/2A, 72/2C and 72/3A, measuring an extent of 3.11 acres situated at A.Vasudevanur Village, Chinnaselam Taluk, Kallakurichi District through sale deed dated 26.03.2010. Originally, in the year 1962, the land comprised in S.No.72/1A, measuring an extent of 3.86 acres was assigned in favour of one Ramasamy Padayachi, who is the father of the 4th respondent. Thereafter, it was sub-divided into different parts and there exists a cart track, which runs on the eastern side of S.No.72/1A. The said cart track is the only pathway to access S.No.72/2A, 72/2C & 72/3A. Admittedly, the existence of cart track reflects in the title deed of the petitioner and also in the revenue records including the FMB sketch issued prior to the UDR. Even the 4th respondent made an application to the Tahsildar on 22.12.2010 for issuance of patta for S.No.72/1A3, 72/1A4, 72/1A5, 72/1A6 since he has been using the aforesaid survey numbers as pathway to access the land situated in S.No.72/1A7. Therefore it is clear that S.No.72/1A3 to 72/1A6 have been used as a pathway and that is the reason why it was classified as “Nilaviyal Pathai” before UDR. This usage has continued since the assignment of the land to the 4th respondent's father and it has been used as pathway for the land situated in S.No.72/ 2A, 72/2B , 72/2C, 72/3A, and 72/1A7 and the same cannot be obstructed at any cost by citing the patta which was issued on the Nilaviyal Pathai.

7. Such being the case, a perusal of FMB sketch in respect of S.No.72 prior and subsequent to the UDR, would show that the “Nilaviyal Pathai” was in existence prior to UDR in S.No.72/1A3 to 72/1A6 and subsequent to UDR, erroneously the patta has been issued to the 4th respondent in respect of S.Nos.72/1A2 to 72/1A6. Now the 4th respondent claiming to use S.No.72/1A3 to 72/1A6 as separate patta land as if there was no existence of “Nilaviyal pathai”, with a malafied intention to obstruct the petitioner from entering into his land. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to the respondents to restore the “Nilaviyal Pathai” in S.No.72/1A3 to 72/1A6 and thereby enable the petitioner to approach his land situated in S.No.72/2A, 72/2C and 72/3A. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court by the petitioner that subsequent to the UDR, the petitioner’s father conveyed S.No.72/1A4 and 72/1A6 in favour of the petitioner and the a suit is pending before the Civil Court seeking declaration of the petitioner’s title in respect of the subject property.

8. Generally the Writ Court will not interfere with the cases where the Civil Suit is already pending. However, in the present case, the subject matter of the suit is patta issued subsequent to the UDR. The relief sought for by the petitioner through the representation dated 19.12.2017 before the RDO/DRO is to restore the “Nilaviyal Pathai” as appears in FMB Sketch prior to the UDR. Hence, the relief sought in the suit and the representation are entirely different. As far as the restoration of land by cancelling the patta is concerned, it is the domain of revenue official to enquire and pass appropriate orders based on the revenue records. Further, a reading of the petitioner’s representation and a perusal of the FMB sketch issued subsequent to the UDR would show that the petitioner has been completely obstructed from accessing his land. If the petitioner’s representation is not considered he will not have a pathway to access his land in S.Nos.72/2A, 72/2C and 72/3A and the petitioner’s interest will get affected prejudicially. No citizen can be obstructed in a four corners of the land. Even according to the 4th respondent, he has been using S.Nos.72/1A2 to 72/1A6 as pathway to access his land in 72/1A7, when the patta application was made, but now preventing this petitioner from using the same as pathway citing the separate patta issued for Nilaviyal Pathai. Therefore, this issue has to be resolved by the Sub- Collector/DRO and the Revenue Authorities which is well within their jurisdiction. Since the title deed of the petitioner, pre-UDR FMB sketches, Village Maps, Revenue Records shows the existence of cart track in S.F.Nos.72/1A3, 72/1A4, 72/1A5 and 72/1A6, there is no impediment for the official respondents to restore the pathway i.e “Nilaviyal Pathai” as appears in FMB Sketch prior to the UDR and thereby providing ingress an egress to the petitioner, after conducting enquiry with the parties concerned.

9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders:-

i) The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 are directed to conduct enquiry based on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2018 after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and restore the “Nilaviyal Pathai” in S.No.72/1A3 to 72/1A6 based on the Pre-UDR FMB available with the Revenue Authority and other documents produced by the respective parties, which was also produced before this Court, by cancelling the patta issued to R4. If any need arises for Police assistance while restoring the Nilaviyal Pathai in S.Nos.72/1A2 to 72/1A6 subsequent to the cancellation of the patta by the 5th respondent, it is open to the official respondent to request for Police protection from the jurisdictional Police. If any such request is made, the jurisdictional Police is directed to provide an adequate Police protection for conducting the field enquiry.

ii) The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 are directed to ensure that the ingress and egress of the petitioner does not get affected within four corners of the land without any movement from his land.

ii) As far as the pending suit for declaration of title is concerned, passing of an order for restoring the Nilaviyal Paadhai has nothing to do with the said pending suit. In fact, in the event, by virtue of the order for restoration of Nilaviyal Padhai, for which the patta was wrongly said to have issued to the 4th respondent, the said land can be utilised for the usage of adjacent land owners, and the public as well.

10. Post this matter on 23.09.2026, for Reporting Compliance.

2. In compliance with the aforementioned order, the respondents issued the necessary notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to restore the Nilaviyal Paadhai (cart track/pathway) in the specified survey numbers. Such being the case, the respondents are directed to restore the Nilaviyal Paadhai in accordance with the directions of this Court vide the order dated 28.08.2026, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 are directed to ensure that the petitioner’s usage of the Nilaviyal Paadhai in the survey numbers 72/1A2, 72/1A6, 72/1A5 and 72/2B is not obstructed or restrained by the private respondent at any point of time.

4. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. List the matter ‘’For Compliance’’ on 27.10.2026’’.

30.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sk To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Revenue Division, VOC Nagar, Kallakurichi District – 606 202.

2. The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem Taluk, Salem Main Road, Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi District – 606 201.

3. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate Building, Kallakurichi District – 606 202.

4. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Building, Kallakurichi District 606 202.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. sk WP No. 24226 of 2026 30.09.2026