Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN
Muthu – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Sivagangai District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks protection for illegal encroachment. (Para 1) |
| 2. occupancy rights on government property. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner claims improper surveying by the government. (Para 3) |
| 4. government asserts the land is a public cart track. (Para 4) |
| 5. court finds petitioner cannot occupy cart track. (Para 5) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed with no costs. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner herein wants to protect his illegal encroachment which is sought to be removed pursuant to the notice, dated 27.1.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned notice states that S. No. 548/11 extending 0.18.00 sq. mtr claims to be Government Poramboke Cart Track. The Government has already laid road in different survey numbers and hence, by improper surveying, the Government is trying to remove the asbestos construction put up by the Writ Petitioner. He further submit that by representation, dated 3.4.2025, he has requested the Tahsildar to recall the notice and grant patta.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1
The court affirmed that an individual cannot encroach upon a government cart track, but may have requests for lawful occupancy considered independently.
Encroachment on government cart track to be removed with due process; patta if granted must be cancelled.
Encroachment on classified cart track impermissible; petitioner directed to vacate with alternative site provided.
Public roads cannot be reclassified or pattas issued to encroachers; must be maintained as roads.
Mandamus directs authorities to survey and remove encroachments on public cart track after notice and due process.
No encroachment or obstruction in cart track on government poramboke land where retaining wall adjacent to canal allows access via remaining path; writ petition dismissed on revenue report.
A writ petition challenging a notice for encroachment on Government land is not maintainable if the petitioners fail to establish a legal right and have previously undertaken to vacate the premises.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
