Natham land not recorded as a public pathway requires civil-court adjudication of competing rights.

The dispute concerns land classified in the revenue records as Natham land at M. Veerampatti, Madurai District.

Earlier orders in W.P.(MD) No. 19392 of 2019 and W.P.(MD) No. 5424 of 2021 had led to proceedings concerning alleged encroachments on the land.

In review applications, the applicants contended that the land’s Natham classification precluded the Government from removing an alleged encroachment; the State submitted that the disputed land was used as a public pathway.

The Court considered the review applications alongside connected impleading and modification applications, contempt petitions, and a writ petition seeking removal of alleged encroachments.

1. Whether the earlier orders in W.P.(MD) No. 19392 of 2019 and W.P.(MD) No. 5424 of 2021 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, given the land’s Natham classification and the absence of material identifying it as a public road or pathway.

2. Whether the nature and character of the disputed land, and the parties’ respective rights, required determination by a competent Civil Court.

The Court relied on the Larger Bench decision in Kannan @ Kamatchi (Died) v. The District Collector, Dindigul District, W.P.(MD) Nos. 19720 of 2017 etc., decided 6 March 2026, which was cited in support of the proposition that the Government’s authority to remove an encroachment may depend on the land’s classification and ownership.

The Court’s decision turned on the review principle that an error apparent on the face of the record may justify review, and on the principle that disputed questions concerning the nature of land and the parties’ rights may require adjudication by a competent Civil Court.

The Court accepted that the land was classified as Natham but treated the key question as whether it was also a public road or pathway.

The revenue records showed the Natham classification and did not record the land as a road or pathway; the Court found no material establishing that it had been earmarked or recognised for public use.

In those circumstances, the disputed land’s character and the parties’ rights could not be resolved on the record before the Court and required civil adjudication.

The Court therefore found an apparent error in the earlier orders.

It left the parties to pursue their remedies before the competent Civil Court, directed that court to decide the claims independently on their merits, and stated that the time spent pursuing the review applications would be excluded for limitation purposes subject to applicable law.

The connected contempt petitions and writ petition were closed as infructuous.