IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY R.Anjali ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector Office Of The District Collector, Chengalpattu District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpattu District.

3. The Tahsildar Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

4. The Commissioner Land Administration Land Administration Department, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600005.

5. The Secretary To Government Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Directing all the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Dr.B.Ramaswamy, for Mr.M.Dinesh For Respondent : Mr.G.Velu, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.11.2025.

2. Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner is the owner of the subject land situated in Survey No.96/1A at Murugamangalam Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District. The petitioner’s land is surrounded by the private properties and “sarkar poromboke land”.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Government land, which is lying between her property and the public road, is blocking the vehicle access to her property, due to which, the ingress and egress at the subject property was totally affected. Hence, a representation was made to the Authorities concerned, requesting them to find out a direct pathway from the petitioner’s property to the public road and vice versa. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

6. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is ready to pay all the necessary charges and the value determined by the Authorities concerned for the pathway, to be allotted by them.

7. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner’s representation will be considered within a period of 6 weeks. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

9. In the case on hand, the petitioner’s land is surrounded by private lands and the sarkar poromboke land, due to which, the vehicle access from the public road to the petitioner’s land was blocked. Hence, she made a representation dated 12.11.2025, requesting the respondents to find a suitable pathway from the public road to the petitioner’s land through the “sarkar poromboke” land.

10. Further, it was submitted by the petitioner that in the event of allotting a pathway to the petitioner’s land, she is willing to pay all the necessary charges and value as determined by the Authorities concerned.

11. In the present case, as stated above, the petitioner’s land is surrounded by the public and private properties, due to which, the ingress and egress was restricted at the subject property. In such case, the petitioner is certainly entitled for a common pathway and it is the bounded duty of the respondents to find out a suitable land and provide access to the petitioner’s land. It is not only about the petitioner's pathway but also about the pathway of other residents, who are residing in that area. In such case, it would be appropriate for the respondent to consider it as a common pathway for all the residents of that area and allot the same at free of cost for the welfare of general public. However, since the petitioner is voluntarily coming forward to pay the cost for allotment of pathway, the same shall al