SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
S.Sivasubramaniyam – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, District Collector Office, Theni District, Theni-625 531. – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.2895 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Sivathilakar
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader, No appearance

No writ remedy for right of way over private patta lands; pursue civil suit.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits writ petitions for mandamus to direct authorities to remove encroachments. Petitioner alleged that private respondents encroached on adjacent survey numbers by erecting a compound wall, blocking access to his property in S.No.402/4, and sought removal via consideration of his representation dated 17.12.2025. Court found survey numbers 402/5 and 402/8 are patta lands of private individuals, plotted without layout approval, and road portion not handed to panchayat. Second Paragraph: Key issue was whether writ court could direct removal of alleged encroachment on private patta lands blocking claimed pathway. Ratio decidendi: No right of way as matter of right enforceable in writ proceedings over private lands; appropriate remedy lies in civil court to establish easement. Third Paragraph: Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks removal of alleged encroachment blocking pathway. (Para 1 , 2)
2. lands are private patta, not government poramboke. (Para 3)
3. no writ right of way; file civil suit; petition dismissed. (Para 4)

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment allegedly made by respondents 5 to 7 in Survey Nos. 402/5 and 402/8 at Koduvilarpatti Village, Theni District, by considering his representation dated 17.12.2025.

2.The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 5 to 7 have put up a compound wall, thereby blocking the common pathway leading to the petitioner’s property.

3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that Survey Nos. 402/5 and 402/8 are not Government poramboke lands, but are patta lands standing in the names of private individuals. It is further stated that the said lands were plotted into house sites without obtaining layout approval from the competent authority, and the portion earmarked for road purposes has not been handed over to the Panchayat.

4. In such circumstances, since the lands belong to private individuals, the petitioner cannot claim a right of way as a matter of right in these proceedings. If the petitioner seeks to establish such a right, he must approach the competent Civil Court by filing an appropriate civil suit.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top