Long-standing possession does not confer entitlement to patta over highway land required for road widening.

Facts

The petitioners challenged notices dated 11 June 2024 issued under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, requiring them to remove alleged encroachments along Kalavai Koot Road, Mulluvadi Village, for a proposed road-widening project. They claimed long-standing possession, payment of taxes and utility charges, and sought pattas for their occupied properties

Source reference: p. 5–7

The State submitted that the land belonged to the Highways Department, was required for widening, and that eviction proceedings had been initiated after inspection; some encroachments had already been removed

Source reference: p. 8

Issues

Whether the petitioners could claim pattas over land classified as Highways property on the basis of long-standing possession

Source reference: p. 8

Whether the Highways Department’s eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, should be interfered with

Source reference: p. 8–9

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, under which proceedings had been initiated to remove the alleged encroachments

Source reference: p. 8–9

It held that long-standing possession did not entitle the petitioners to claim pattas over land classified as Highways property and required for road widening

Source reference: p. 8

Reasoning

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the occupied land was Highways property and was required for the road-widening project; eviction notices had been issued under Section 28, and the petitioners’ objections and requests for pattas had been considered

Source reference: p. 8

Given the land’s classification and the ongoing statutory proceedings, the Court found no basis to grant pattas over the occupied sites or interfere with the eviction process

Source reference: p. 8–9

It nevertheless directed the first respondent to consider applications for pattas elsewhere and to consider eligible applicants under the applicable scheme

Source reference: p. 9

Holding

The Court held that the petitioners had no right to pattas over the Highways land they occupied based solely on long-standing possession and declined to interfere with the eviction proceedings

The writ petitions were disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ applications for pattas elsewhere and consider eligible applicants under the relevant scheme; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs

Source reference: p. 9