Madras HC Dismisses Woman’s Fresh Survey Plea Over Neighbour’s Alleged Pathway Encroachment, Imposes ₹10,000 Costs After Earlier Replies Went Unchallenged

The petitioner sought a joint re-survey of properties and a public pathway, drainage course and rainwater channel in R.S. Nos. 250/4 and 250/1E, and removal of an alleged encroachment by the sixth respondent.

The Tahsildar’s field-inspection report dated 4 December 2024 found no encroachment on a Government pathway and treated the disputed land as patta land; a further inspection and reply dated 14 May 2025 reiterated that finding.

The petitioner did not challenge either reply before filing the present petition.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court stated that a person seeking removal of an encroachment must provide correct facts and implead the alleged encroachers; petitions based on presumptions or assumptions may be dismissed in limine, and costs may be imposed where an ill motive is established.

The Court relied on the two prior field inspections, both of which concluded that there was no encroachment and that the disputed land was patta land.

Because the petitioner had not challenged either administrative reply, the Court considered a further writ seeking a fresh survey and removal of the alleged encroachment not entertainable. It also viewed the petition as motivated by personal enmity and treated it as an instance warranting costs.

The matter was directed to be listed on 13 November 2026 for reporting compliance.