Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
Jothilakshm – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram – Respondent
W.P(MD) No.18198 of 2018 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16100 & 16099 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Gokul
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Ramar, Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2, Mr.Kannan for R3

Encroachment on classified cart track impermissible; petitioner directed to vacate with alternative site provided.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a notice under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash the order classifying Survey No. 218/1 as a cart track, on which encroachments are impermissible as per revenue records. The court found the site to be a cart track with no allowable encroachment. An alternative site in Survey No. 218/122 was provided to the extent of 0.00.60 hac. The core issue was the legality of encroachment on a classified cart track. The ratio decidendi holds that encroachments on cart tracks are invalid, supported by settled law and revenue classification. The writ petition was dismissed with two months granted to vacate and remove encroachment; no costs.

Table of Content
1. encroachment notice on cart track upheld. (Para 1 , 2)
2. alternative site granted; petition dismissed. (Para 3)

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The writ petitioner challenges the notice dated 9.11.2017 issued by the Commissioner, Rameshwaram Municipality, calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment committed by her in Survey no.

218/1.

2. Admittedly, as per the revenue record, Survey No. 218/1 has been classified as “cart track”. It is well settled that on a cart track, there cannot be any encroachment.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent states that the petitioner has been granted alternative site in Survey number 218/122 to an extent of 0.00.60 hac. It is for the petitioner to move to the alternate site as expeditiously as possible. 4. Granting two months time to the petitioner to vacate and remove the encroachment, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJJothilakshm – AppellantVersusThe District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram – RespondentW.P(MD) No.18198 of 2018 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16100 & 16099 of 2018

Encroachment on classified cart track impermissible; petitioner directed to vacate with alternative site provided.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
Jothilakshm – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram – Respondent
W.P(MD) No.18198 of 2018 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16100 & 16099 of 2018