Mandamus Issued Directing Authorities to Survey and Remove Encroachments From Public Road Poramboke Lands.

The petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus to direct the removal of alleged illegal constructions and encroachments by a third party, T.Ratinaraj (Respondent No. 7), in Survey Nos. 159/36 and 159/26 of Nalumavadi Village, which are categorized as public pathways.

The petitioner had submitted a representation on 20.02.2023, but no effective action was taken by the authorities.

A report from the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 5) confirmed that S.No. 159/36 is categorized as Salai Poramboke Pathai (Road Poramboke) and that Respondent No. 7 had encroached upon approximately 11 square meters by constructing a compound wall.

Both the petitioner and the alleged encroacher filed petitions to implead T.Ratinaraj as a respondent, which were allowed.

1. Whether the authorities are mandated to conduct a fresh survey and take action to remove encroachments on land categorized as public road/pathway (Salai Poramboke).

The court applied the principles of administrative accountability and the duty of local authorities to protect public lands under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and related revenue laws.

The core principle holds that if land is categorized in revenue records as Salai Poramboke (Road Poramboke), any private construction thereon constitutes an illegal encroachment that state authorities (specifically the Tahsildar and Block Development Officer) are legally obligated to remove after due process of survey and identification.

The Court's reasoning was based on the verification of the land's status through the Tahsildar's report, which established that S.No. 159/36 was indeed public road property and that an encroachment existed.

Although the petitioner alleged further encroachment in S.No. 159/26, the Court determined that a comprehensive survey of both survey numbers was necessary to resolve the dispute.

The Court linked the statutory duty of the Tahsildar (to identify boundaries) and the Block Development Officer (to execute removal of encroachments) to the petitioner's right to have public pathways maintained free of obstruction. By setting a strict timeline for survey and enforcement, the Court ensured the application of the rule of law against unauthorized occupation of government land.

The Tahsildar (R-5) was directed to conduct a survey of S.Nos. 159/36 and 159/26 within three weeks; if encroachments are found, the Block Development Officer (R-4) is directed to initiate proceedings and remove the same within a subsequent four-week window (two weeks for issuance of proceedings and two weeks for removal). The Registry was further directed to amend the cause title to include T.Ratinaraj as the 7th respondent.