Private land used for public roads cannot be reclassified as highway property without formal land acquisition.

The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Arani, dated 16.10.2023, which rejected their request to reclassify a portion of land in Survey No. 662, Kasthambadi Village, as Highways property.

The petitioners alleged that the land was a Cart Track (Nilaviyal Pathai) and that Respondents 6 to 8 had encroached upon it.

The state authorities (R1-R5) and private respondents (R8) contended that the land is private patta land and that no encroachment exists.

A field inspection and survey conducted by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways) revealed that while a road used by the public for over 50 years passes through Survey No. 662, the land was never formally acquired by the Highways Department and remains recorded as private patta land in the Field Map Book (FMB).

1. Whether the disputed land in Survey No. 662 is government Highways property or private patta land.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the removal of alleged encroachments by Respondents 6 to 8.

The court relied on the principles of land classification and the necessity of formal acquisition under the Tamil Nadu State Highways (L.A.) Act, 2001, to vest private land in the State.

It also applied the principle that Nilaviyal Pathai (land recorded as a path in revenue maps) vests with the government for public utility, but public usage of a road over private land for a long duration (60 years) does not automatically transfer title to the Highways Department without formal acquisition proceedings.

The Court examined the RDO’s enquiry report and the counter-affidavit filed by the state, which confirmed that the road in question passes through private patta land (S.No. 662) and has been used by the public for decades without objection from the owners.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ claim—based on the boundary descriptions in their own sale deed—was factually incorrect, as the physical road is situated 3 to 4 meters away from the petitioners’ property line and within the respondents' patta land.

The Court reasoned that since the Highways Department had not acquired the land under any Land Acquisition Act, and the FMB did not mark the area as a public road with specific dimensions, the land remains private property.

Therefore, the petitioners failed to prove any encroachment on government-owned Highways property.

The Court held that if the government requires the land for road expansion in the future, it must be acquired through due process, but at present, there is no illegal occupation of government property.

No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.