Authorities must remove encroachments on cart-tracks earmarked in revenue records under the Land Encroachment Act.

The Petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking the removal of alleged illegal encroachments made by Private Respondents 6 and 7 on a cart-track public road located at S.F. No. 286/5, Dinnapatti Village, Mettur Taluk.

Revenue authorities conducted an inspection and survey, identifying the subject area as a cart-track earmarked as Government land under RSO 26(15).

Consequently, authorities issued notices under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Respondents 6 and 7 filed a statutory appeal under Section 10 of the Act, which the District Collector dismissed via a speaking order dated 23.01.2025, confirming the encroachment based on FMB sketch records.

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to remove identified encroachments on a recorded public cart-track under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. Whether a cart-track earmarked in a Field Measurement Boundary (FMB) sketch qualifies as a public pathway to be maintained by the state despite being situated near or within patta lands.

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905), specifically Section 6 (liability to eviction), Section 7 (prior notice), and Section 10 (appeal process).

It further relied on Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 26(15) and G.O. Ms. No. 2254, Revenue, dated 22.05.1962, which establish that cart-tracks recorded in revenue sketches are Government land or public pathways to be maintained for public benefit, regardless of surrounding land ownership.

The Court examined the procedural steps taken by the revenue authorities and concluded that the statutory requirements of the 1905 Act had been satisfied through the issuance of Section 7 and Section 6 notices.

The Court noted that the District Collector’s appellate order dated 23.01.2025 was a "speaking order" which confirmed that the subject land is recorded as a pathway in the FMB sketch.

By applying RSO 26(15), the Court reasoned that once a portion of land is identified as a public cart-track in official revenue records, it must be kept free of obstructions for the benefit of the local community. Since the encroachment was factually established and the statutory appeal by the encroachers was rejected, the Court found no legal impediment to the immediate removal of the structures.

The Court held that the authorities must ensure the road is available for public use within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.