CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No

1/10WP No. 20207 of 2016IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No. 20207 of 2016P.Manickavelu,Petitioner(s)Vs1. The District Collector,Salem2.Block Development Officer,Nangavalli, Salem District.3.The President,Avadathur Panchayat, Savariyoor (PO), Galakandapuram Block, Salem District- 636 501.4.The Tahsildar,Tahsildar Office, Mettur, Salem District- 636 401.Respondent(s)PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from in any way doing road laying work on the Petitioner's land situated at Survey No. 237/3, Pethan Valaivu, Avadathur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10WP No. 20207 of 2016consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.For Petitioner(s):Ms.Pramila for Mr. P.NethajiFor Respondent(s):Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal AGP for R1 & R4Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy for R2 & R3ORDERThe case of the petitioner is that his father, one Petha Gounder, and his two brothers purchased the property situated in S.No.237/3, Pethan Valaivu, Avadathur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. His father had been in possession and enjoyment of the property from 30.11.1934 till his death in the year 1987. Post his death, the 'Samadhi' of his father had been built on the petitioner's property. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the said Petha Gounder executed a settlement deed for the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner, Manickavelu. On the strength of the settlement deed, the petitioner had also made representations to the fourth respondent with a request to survey the land and mutate the revenue records in his favour on 17.11.2015 and 28.12.2015. It is submitted by the petitioner that the said representations are still pending consideration by the Tahsildar. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10WP No. 20207 of 20162.The petitioner pleads that he made out an application for sub division patta transfer of the property on 14.03.2016. The petitioner further contends that when he visited his property on the first week of May 2016, he found that road levelling works were being undertaken on his private holdings. The authorization or licence for the same was not sanctioned by the petitioner. When the said application was pending, it came to his knowledge that the Vice President, one Mr.Murugan, who was inimically disposed against his family, was the one who proposed to lay a road over his private holdings without prior sanction from the third respondent. On coming to know of the said proposal, he gave a representation to the District Collector, the Block Development Officer and the President, calling upon them to desist from laying the road over his property on 09.05.2016. This was followed up with a Lawyer's notice on 14.05.2016. As no tangible action was forthcoming from the respondents, he was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition.3.The petitioner asserted that the property situated in S.No.237/3 belongs to him and an illegal attempt is being made by the respondents to lay a road https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10WP No. 20207 of 2016over his private holdings. He also sought for an order for interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his right to property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.4.Taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner, this Court entertained the writ petition on 17.06.2016 and granted an interim order in the following terms:-Respondents are directed not to carryout any activity or lay road to a great extent of 3 feet breadth from the compound wall of the petitioner's property until further orders. Respondents are further directed to file counter affidavit and they are also directed to denote as to whether any Mining activity is going on in and around Pakkanadu village or any other nearby village. (underlined by me)Despite the grant of interim order, it transpires that the respondents had laid a road over the petitioner's holding. 5.The second and fourth respondents have filed a separate counter. The fourth respondent - Tahsildar states that as per the revenue records maintained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10WP No. 20207 of 2016in his office, the property situated in S.No.237/3, Pethan Valaivu, Avadathur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, is not a Government land, but is a private holding standing in the name of Nagappan and seven others. He has also admitted plea of the petitioner, that the petitioner is a joint pattadhar in Patta No.1253 as per the proceedings in TR 4320/13-14/6II, dated 03.02.2014. The Tahsildar has further accepted the execution of the settlement deed by the petitioner's mother and his siblings in his favour. The explanation for laying a road over the private holding is that, the people of Avadathur Village requested for laying a road over the property, which they had been using as a pathway for ingress and egress for a long time. In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, he blames the petitioner for not having fenced out his property, and the explanation he says is, if such fencing had been put up, it would disturb people's movement in the village. He states that the road which has been laid in the survey number is true, but as per his enquiry, the Block Development Officer has been kind enough not to demolish the Samadhi of the petitioner's father. Consequently, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10WP No. 20207 of 20166.The second respondent has filed a counter stating that there has been a cart track existing since time immemorial in S.No.237/3 commencing from Edappady to Jalakandapuram Road to Pethan Valaivu, for a length of 715 metres. He alleges that this cart track enables the villagers to reach the main road and other parts of Salem District. He pleads that as the cart track was being used by the villagers, it was decided to upgrade the Mud road to a Bitumen road (Black Top road). The second respondent further adds that as the petitioner did not object to the laying of the road at the time of acquiring title to the property by way of a settlement deed, the Block Development Officer had decided to lay the road as per the sanction issued by the District Collector on 19.01.2016. Hence, the second respondent also seeks for the dismissal of the writ petition.7.The first and third respondent have not troubled themselves to file a counter to the writ petition.8.I heard Ms.Pramila for Mr. P.Nethaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R4 and Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy, learned counsel for R2 & R3. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10WP No. 20207 of 20169.A reading of the affidavit, the documents filed therewith, along with counter affidavit makes it clear that the petitioner is the owner of the property situated in S.No.237/3 of Avadathur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The petitioner might not have objected for persons to utilise his private property for having an access to the main road, which is situated nearby. That does not mean that the State, represented by the respondents 1 to 4, are entitled to run roughshod over his constitutional right under Article 300 A and trespass into the property to lay a road. As long as the title vests with the petitioner, he is entitled to assert his right over the same, or grant a license for persons to walk over his property. For the mere fact that license had been given to certain persons to walk over the land, does not mean that the State can lay a road over the same without resorting to acquisition proceedings.10.I find it extremely condescending on the part of the fourth respondent to state that the petitioner should feel happy, that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not demolished the Samadhi of the petitioner's father while laying a road. The act of the State in laying road over the private holding of a citizen cannot but be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10WP No. 20207 of 2016termed as a State sponsored land grabbing. Such acts cannot be condoned. The right under Article 300 A demands that a citizen's property cannot be taken over except otherwise in accordance with law. It is not as if the State is empowered to acquire the land. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 channelises the power of eminent domain of the Government to acquire the property for any public purpose. When the second respondent had sent a proposal to first respondent, the least that is expected from the first respondent is to ensure that the scheme that he is approving does not amount to trespass of a citizen's land. Unfortunately, the first respondent seems to have thrown his duties to the wind, and in an automaton manner, had approved the proposal of the second respondent.11.As it is conceded that the land belongs to the petitioner and as the road has already been laid, the first respondent is granted three (3) weeks time to ensure that the acquisition proceedings are initiated under the 2013 Act and appropriate orders are passed on or before 25.11.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10WP No. 20207 of 201612.I should recollect here that a Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramaniam and the Hon'ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri have held that if the Government does not feel the need to acquire the land within the time granted by the Court, the petitioner will be entitled to take over the land and prevent any further access, either at the hand of the respondents, or any other person, who might claim through them. Since it has been pointed out by Ms.Pramila, learned counsel for the petitioner that a road has been laid despite the order of this Court, in case the acquisition proceedings are not initiated by the District Collector in the mean time, further orders will be passed in the writ petition.13.Accordingly, the writ petition stands ordered. No costs. 14.Call the matter on 26.11.2025 for reporting compliance. 13-10-2025sliIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoNote: Registry is directed to upload the order copy on 14.10.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10WP No. 20207 of 2016V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.sliTo1.The District Collector,Salem2.Block Development Officer,Nangavalli, Salem District3.The President,Avadathur Panchayat, Savariyoor Post, Galakandapuram Block, Salem District- 636 501.4.The Tahsildar,Tahsildar Office, Mettur, Salem District- 636 401WP No. 20207 of 2016 13-10-2025