Madras HC Makes Pathway-Encroachment Removal Depend on Neighbour’s Land Challenge, Orders Decision Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain relief concerning Survey No. 327/3 despite the prior civil proceedings and their non-disclosure in the writ petition.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of without a determination on the merits. No relief was granted concerning Survey No. 327/3.

It also directed

The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, was directed to decide the seventh respondent’s revision petitions within three months. If the revisions were allowed, the revenue authorities could take no further action on the petitioner’s complaint; if rejected, the Tahsildar was directed to conduct a proper survey and remove any encroachments found in Survey Nos. 327/4B and 327/4A2. No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to remove an alleged encroachment on a public pathway in Survey Nos. 327/3, 327/4B and 327/4A2 at Soorakkundu, based on his representation dated 27 February 2026.

p. 2

The seventh respondent submitted that Survey No. 327/3 had been the subject of civil proceedings brought by the petitioner and his grandfather, which had been dismissed; the petitioner had not disclosed those proceedings in his writ affidavit.

p. 3

As to Survey Nos. 327/4B and 327/4A2, the seventh respondent contended that the lands had been reclassified as public pathway without notice. He had filed a revision concerning Survey No. 327/4A before the District Revenue Officer and undertook to file another concerning Survey No. 327/4B.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner could obtain relief concerning Survey No. 327/3 despite the prior civil proceedings and their non-disclosure in the writ petition.

p. 3

ii.2. Whether action should be taken on the petitioner’s encroachment complaint concerning Survey Nos. 327/4B and 327/4A2 before the seventh respondent’s challenges to the classification of the lands were decided.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

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

p. 2

It directed that the seventh respondent’s revision petitions be decided on their merits and in accordance with law; consequential action on the petitioner’s complaint would depend on the outcome of those revisions.

p. 4

04Reasoning

The Court declined to grant relief concerning Survey No. 327/3 because the prior civil proceedings relating to that survey number had been dismissed and were not disclosed in the petitioner’s affidavit.

p. 3

For Survey Nos. 327/4B and 327/4A2, the Court did not determine the validity of the reclassification or the alleged encroachments. Instead, it required the District Revenue Officer to decide the seventh respondent’s revisions first, with any subsequent enforcement action contingent on that decision. The Court expressly left the merits and the seventh respondent’s contentions open.

pp. 4–5