Family’s Challenge To Rule Protecting Patta-Land Path Fails After Two Decades Of Public Use, Madras HC Holds

The petitioners challenged Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 26(15), as amended by G.O. (1D) No. 568 dated 23 October 2000, contending that it could not treat a plan-marked pathway in private patta land as Government land without authority of law or acquisition.

The disputed land, Survey No. C6/74, Kalkulam Village, was recorded as “Nilaviyal Santhu”; the petitioners claimed it formed part of their family property and relied on a registered Will and partition proceedings.

The State maintained that the land had long been identified and used as a public pathway, and that RSO 26(15) regulated its protection rather than transferring title to the Government.

The writ petition, filed in 2023, sought a declaration that the amended provision was unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Whether RSO 26(15), as amended by G.O. (1D) No. 568 dated 23 October 2000, violates Article 300-A by depriving a pattadar of property without authority of law.

Whether RSO 26(15) is liable to be struck down as ultra vires, including on the ground that its challenge was brought after substantial delay.

Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person may be deprived of property except by authority of law.

In assessing the validity of subordinate legislation, the Court relied on the principles in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, as quoted in Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India: subordinate legislation is presumed valid and may be challenged, among other grounds, for violating constitutional rights, exceeding the enabling statute, or being manifestly arbitrary.

RSO 26(15) addresses encroachments on plan-marked channels or pathways in patta land and restricts interference with public pathways, while permitting specified diversions for consolidation or irrigation.

The Court also referred to Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, as providing for the treatment of public roads, lanes and paths as Government property, subject to the statutory qualifications.

The Court considered the historical revenue treatment of plan-marked pathways, including Board proceedings dating from 1922 and 1966, and found that such pathways could retain their public character even when situated within a survey holding.

It treated the disputed land’s “Nilaviyal Santhu” classification, its identification in the survey records, and its use as a pathway as supporting its public function.

The Court reasoned that RSO 26(15) regulated the use of land earmarked for a public purpose and did not, by itself, extinguish the landholder’s title; on that basis, it found no deprivation contrary to Article 300-A.

It also considered the challenge belated: the amendment had been in force since 2000, while the petition was filed in 2023, despite the earlier partition proceedings and longstanding public use.

It dismissed the writ petition, closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, and made no order as to costs.