High Court · 2025

W.P.No.6582 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.08.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARandTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELW.P.No.6582 of 2023andW.M.P.No.6656 of 2023K.AnbazhaganS/o.Late KaliappanPetitionervs.

1.The District CollectorDharmapuri DistrictDharmapuri.

2.The Sub CollectorDharmapuriDharmapuri District.

3.The TahsildarKarimangalamDharmapuri District.

4.KaliyappanS/o.Vedimooppan @ Vediyappan5.GovindanS/o.Vedimooppan @ Vediyappan6.ArumugamS/o.Vedimooppan @ VediyappanRespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Page 1 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.5911/2021/A5 dated 28.02.2022, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to use the 'Nilaviyal Padhai' as a 'Cart Track' in Survey Nos.178/2E and 178/3C to the total extent of 0.04.00 hectares of the Kelavalli Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District.For petitioner Mr.J.PradeepFor respondents Mr.T.K.SaravananAdditional Government PleaderFor R1 to R3*****O R D E R(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)Subject matter of the captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} is 'lands comprised in S.Nos.178/2E and 178/3C, both situate in Kelavalli (5) Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District' {hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.

2. Mr.J.Pradeep, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for official respondents (R1 to R3) are before us.

3. To be noted, captioned main WP has neither been admitted (Rule Nisi not issued) nor notice has been ordered to private respondents.

4. Writ petitioner came to this Court earlier with a 'Removal of Page 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Encroachment' {'RoE'] prayer vide W.P.No.10637 of 2021 and this writ petition came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench in and by an order dated 28.09.2021 which reads as follows:Page 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Page 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 20235. Paragraph No.5 of the afore-referred judicial order is relevant but the writ petitioner has not chosen to enclose his representation dated 04.03.2021 adverted to in paragraph No.5 of the earlier judicial order.

6. Be that as it may, pursuant to the earlier judicial order, R2 has conducted an enquiry, heard the writ petitioner as well as private respondents and made an 'order dated 28.02.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.5911/2021/A5' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, Page 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023convenience and clarity} inter alia holding that there is no impediment in public using said lands as footpath as they are patta lands which have been classified as 'Nilaviyil Pathai' in the revenue records.

7. Writ petitioner submits that he is not satisfied with the impugned order as according to writ petitioner said lands can be used as Vandipathai also (enabling automobiles to pass through). As already alluded to supra, captioned WP has neither been admitted nor notice has been ordered to private respondents. Learned State Counsel for official respondents has accepted notice on 06.03.2023 and R1 to R3 have filed a common counter affidavit dated 20.02.2024.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that notwithstanding myriad grounds in the writ affidavit, he has predicated his campaign against the impugned order on one short point and that one short point is, R2 has proceeded on the basis that measurements qua said lands have not been mentioned in the official sketches whereas FMB (to be noted, 'FMB' denotes 'Field Measurement Book') extracts speak to the contrary. In support of his contention, learned counsel for writ petitioner drew our attention to FMB extracts and scanned reproduction of the same as placed before us are as follows:Page 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Page 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Page 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 20239. To be noted, extracts of A-Register qua said lands have also been Page 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023placed before us and scanned reproduction of the same are as follows:Page 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 202310. On a careful perusal of the aforementioned sketches and extracts from A-Register, it comes to light that both length and breadth qua two survey numbers namely, S.Nos.178/2E and 178/3C which constitute said lands have been mentioned. While S.No.178/2E is 4 m broad and 76 m long, S.No.178/3C is 3 m broad and 47.2 m long. Therefore, the lone point on the basis of which writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned order does not find favour with us.Page 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 202311. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid common counter affidavit of official respondents, it has been made clear that revenue records and Village plan show said lands only as 'Pathway' and not 'Cart Track'. Paragraph No.5 of common counter affidavit of official respondents reads as follows:'5. The fact is that the pathway passes through the patta land in S.Nos.178/2E and 178/3C of the respondents 4, 5 and 6. The entire extent is not classified as pathway. The pathway passes through the patta lands of the said 3 respondents and they do not object for the use of this pathway by the writ petitioner. But they refuse to allow to use the pathway as cart track which needs more width. In the village plan only pathway is marked and not cart track. Hence the writ petitioner could only use this way as pathway and not as cart track as claimed by him'{underlining made by this Court for ease of reference}12. In the light of the narrative thus far, keeping in mind, the scope of judicial review in a writ jurisdiction in matters of this nature, we have no difficulty in writing that we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. As we are not interfering with the impugned order and as writ petitioner's campaign against the impugned order was predicated on only one point as already alluded to supra, captioned WP stands vastly de-scoped and in this view of the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State Counsel, main WP was taken Page 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023up.

13. We dispense with notice to private respondents as we are not interfering with the impugned order. In other words, i.e., to put it differently, this order does not impact rights of private respondents (R4 to R6) in any manner.

14. Be that as it may, the impugned order has been made by R2 pursuant to afore-referred judicial order dated 28.09.2021 made by another Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.10637 of 2021. Therefore, this Court deemed it appropriate to give option to writ petitioner to file a revision under Section 13 of 'the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} by treating the impugned order as an order amenable to revision as R2 is higher than Tahsildhar in hierarchy. It is made clear that this will not serve as precedent as the impugned order has been made by R2 pursuant to an earlier judicial order. However, learned counsel for writ petitioner did not avail this option and choose to persist with the legal drill at hand i.e., assailing the impugned order by way of judicial review in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we embark upon the legal drill at hand and it is in this context, we deem it appropriate it write that we have referred to the scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction supra.Page 13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Ergo, the sequitur is captioned WP fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 25.08.2025mkIndex : Yes/NoNC : Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking orderTo:1.The District CollectorDharmapuri DistrictDharmapuri.

2.The Sub CollectorDharmapuriDharmapuri District.

3.The TahsildarKarimangalamDharmapuri District.Page 14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023M. SUNDAR, J.andR. SAKTHIVEL, J.mkW.P.No.6582 of 202325.08.2025Page 15 of 15

W.P.No.6582 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.08.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARandTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELW.P.No.6582 of 2023andW.M.P.No.6656 of 2023K.AnbazhaganS/o.Late KaliappanPetitionervs.

1.The District CollectorDharmapuri DistrictDharmapuri.

2.The Sub CollectorDharmapuriDharmapuri District.

3.The TahsildarKarimangalamDharmapuri District.

4.KaliyappanS/o.Vedimooppan @ Vediyappan5.GovindanS/o.Vedimooppan @ Vediyappan6.ArumugamS/o.Vedimooppan @ VediyappanRespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Page 1 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.5911/2021/A5 dated 28.02.2022, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to use the 'Nilaviyal Padhai' as a 'Cart Track' in Survey Nos.178/2E and 178/3C to the total extent of 0.04.00 hectares of the Kelavalli Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District.For petitioner Mr.J.PradeepFor respondents Mr.T.K.SaravananAdditional Government PleaderFor R1 to R3*****O R D E R(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)Subject matter of the captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} is 'lands comprised in S.Nos.178/2E and 178/3C, both situate in Kelavalli (5) Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District' {hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.

2. Mr.J.Pradeep, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for official respondents (R1 to R3) are before us.

3. To be noted, captioned main WP has neither been admitted (Rule Nisi not issued) nor notice has been ordered to private respondents.

4. Writ petitioner came to this Court earlier with a 'Removal of Page 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Encroachment' {'RoE'] prayer vide W.P.No.10637 of 2021 and this writ petition came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench in and by an order dated 28.09.2021 which reads as follows:Page 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Page 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 20235. Paragraph No.5 of the afore-referred judicial order is relevant but the writ petitioner has not chosen to enclose his representation dated 04.03.2021 adverted to in paragraph No.5 of the earlier judicial order.

6. Be that as it may, pursuant to the earlier judicial order, R2 has conducted an enquiry, heard the writ petitioner as well as private respondents and made an 'order dated 28.02.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.5911/2021/A5' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, Page 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023convenience and clarity} inter alia holding that there is no impediment in public using said lands as footpath as they are patta lands which have been classified as 'Nilaviyil Pathai' in the revenue records.

7. Writ petitioner submits that he is not satisfied with the impugned order as according to writ petitioner said lands can be used as Vandipathai also (enabling automobiles to pass through). As already alluded to supra, captioned WP has neither been admitted nor notice has been ordered to private respondents. Learned State Counsel for official respondents has accepted notice on 06.03.2023 and R1 to R3 have filed a common counter affidavit dated 20.02.2024.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that notwithstanding myriad grounds in the writ affidavit, he has predicated his campaign against the impugned order on one short point and that one short point is, R2 has proceeded on the basis that measurements qua said lands have not been mentioned in the official sketches whereas FMB (to be noted, 'FMB' denotes 'Field Measurement Book') extracts speak to the contrary. In support of his contention, learned counsel for writ petitioner drew our attention to FMB extracts and scanned reproduction of the same as placed before us are as follows:Page 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Page 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Page 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 20239. To be noted, extracts of A-Register qua said lands have also been Page 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023placed before us and scanned reproduction of the same are as follows:Page 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 202310. On a careful perusal of the aforementioned sketches and extracts from A-Register, it comes to light that both length and breadth qua two survey numbers namely, S.Nos.178/2E and 178/3C which constitute said lands have been mentioned. While S.No.178/2E is 4 m broad and 76 m long, S.No.178/3C is 3 m broad and 47.2 m long. Therefore, the lone point on the basis of which writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned order does not find favour with us.Page 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 202311. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid common counter affidavit of official respondents, it has been made clear that revenue records and Village plan show said lands only as 'Pathway' and not 'Cart Track'. Paragraph No.5 of common counter affidavit of official respondents reads as follows:'5. The fact is that the pathway passes through the patta land in S.Nos.178/2E and 178/3C of the respondents 4, 5 and 6. The entire extent is not classified as pathway. The pathway passes through the patta lands of the said 3 respondents and they do not object for the use of this pathway by the writ petitioner. But they refuse to allow to use the pathway as cart track which needs more width. In the village plan only pathway is marked and not cart track. Hence the writ petitioner could only use this way as pathway and not as cart track as claimed by him'{underlining made by this Court for ease of reference}12. In the light of the narrative thus far, keeping in mind, the scope of judicial review in a writ jurisdiction in matters of this nature, we have no difficulty in writing that we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. As we are not interfering with the impugned order and as writ petitioner's campaign against the impugned order was predicated on only one point as already alluded to supra, captioned WP stands vastly de-scoped and in this view of the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State Counsel, main WP was taken Page 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023up.

13. We dispense with notice to private respondents as we are not interfering with the impugned order. In other words, i.e., to put it differently, this order does not impact rights of private respondents (R4 to R6) in any manner.

14. Be that as it may, the impugned order has been made by R2 pursuant to afore-referred judicial order dated 28.09.2021 made by another Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.10637 of 2021. Therefore, this Court deemed it appropriate to give option to writ petitioner to file a revision under Section 13 of 'the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} by treating the impugned order as an order amenable to revision as R2 is higher than Tahsildhar in hierarchy. It is made clear that this will not serve as precedent as the impugned order has been made by R2 pursuant to an earlier judicial order. However, learned counsel for writ petitioner did not avail this option and choose to persist with the legal drill at hand i.e., assailing the impugned order by way of judicial review in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we embark upon the legal drill at hand and it is in this context, we deem it appropriate it write that we have referred to the scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction supra.Page 13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023Ergo, the sequitur is captioned WP fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 25.08.2025mkIndex : Yes/NoNC : Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking orderTo:1.The District CollectorDharmapuri DistrictDharmapuri.

2.The Sub CollectorDharmapuriDharmapuri District.

3.The TahsildarKarimangalamDharmapuri District.Page 14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6582 of 2023M. SUNDAR, J.andR. SAKTHIVEL, J.mkW.P.No.6582 of 202325.08.2025Page 15 of 15