A publicly used plan-marked pathway cannot be shifted merely to suit the landowner’s convenience.

The petitioners claimed ownership of lands in Survey Nos. 268/2F and 272/3 at Valaikulam Village, through which a west–east Nilaviyal Pathai (plan-marked pathway) ran.

After the petitioners erected a gate obstructing access, the fourth respondent initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and directed removal of the gate under Section 6.

The petitioners’ statutory appeal under Section 10 was dismissed by the District Collector on 12.03.2026, with a direction to remove the obstruction.

Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations seeking permission to shift the pathway to the southern and eastern boundaries of their lands, relying on Revenue Standing Order 26(15).

They approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to consider those representations.

On examining the FMB plan and the colour-washed plan, the Court found that the proposed diversion would convert the existing relatively straight pathway into a circuitous, L-shaped route.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction under Article 226 requiring the revenue authorities to consider their representations seeking shifting of the plan-marked Nilaviyal Pathai under Revenue Standing Order 26(15).

Whether Revenue Standing Order 26(15) permits the shifting of a public plan-marked pathway merely to accommodate the landowners, particularly where the proposed diversion would make the pathway circuitous and inconvenience the public.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution concerning the issuance of writs, including mandamus, and Sections 6 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, under which obstruction upon Government land may be removed and an aggrieved person may pursue a statutory appeal.

The principal rule was Revenue Standing Order 26(15), which treats a plan-marked channel or pathway running through patta land as Government land and permits eviction where an encroachment interferes with the pathway; however, a pathway or cart track used by the public cannot be shifted merely to suit the convenience of the ryot.

The provision permits diversion primarily where necessary to consolidate the holding or facilitate irrigation of otherwise severed portions.

The Court further held that, unlike a channel, whose diversion may not materially impede the flow of water, diversion of a public pathway that makes it circuitous causes prejudice and inconvenience to its users.

The Court held that the existing pathway ran substantially in a straight west–east direction, whereas the proposed diversion along the southern and eastern extremities would create an L-shaped and longer route.

Since the pathway was a plan-marked public pathway situated on Government land, the petitioners could not invoke RSO 26(15) to obtain a diversion designed primarily to benefit their private landholding.

The exception in RSO 26(15) concerning diversion for consolidation of holdings or irrigation was not applicable because the requested change concerned a public pathway and would inconvenience the general public.

In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to compel the authorities to consider a representation founded on a legally impermissible request.

It held that the petitioners were not entitled to seek shifting of the public Nilaviyal Pathai where the proposed diversion would make the route circuitous and cause prejudice to public users, and that RSO 26(15) did not support such a request.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.