Revenue records alone cannot turn private pathway land into government property, Madras High Court rules; acquisition requires due process and compensation

Facts

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 16/6, 16/7 and 16/17B, supported by registered deeds and revenue records.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–9

Following a prior sub-division during the UDR proceedings, portions of the lands were recorded as “Nilaviyal Pathai.”

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–9

The petitioners challenged those entries through a revision and filed O.S. No. 60 of 2025 before the Section 6 proceedings began.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–9

After this Court directed action concerning the alleged public pathway in W.P. No. 35898 of 2025, the Tahsildar issued a Section 7 notice; the petitioners objected, but a Section 6 notice followed.

Source reference: pp. 5–8, paras. 10–16

The authorities then removed trees while restoring the pathway.

Source reference: pp. 5–8, paras. 10–16

The respondents asserted that the pathway was 8.6 metres wide, while the Court found that the revenue material and submissions indicated a width of about four metres and that the respondents had not substantiated the wider measurement.

Source reference: pp. 9–10, 45–46, paras. 18–19, 66–68

Issues

1. Whether RSO 26(15), by treating a plan-marked pathway through patta land as Government land, can itself divest the private owner of title or authorise summary eviction under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905

Source reference: pp. 12–21, 26–30, paras. 20–34, 43–46

2. Whether the respondents could restore a 28-foot-wide pathway and remove trees from the petitioners’ land without establishing lawful authority for that extent and without following due process

Source reference: pp. 36–39, 45–48, paras. 55–58, 66–69

3. Whether Section 14 of the 1905 Act barred the petitioners’ civil suit, and whether the Section 6 notice was valid despite the petitioners’ objections

Source reference: pp. 48–49, 52, paras. 70–75

Law Applied

Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 defines Government property while preserving specified private-land interests and rights of way; the Act’s summary eviction process applies to Government land, not merely to private land labelled as a pathway in revenue records.

Source reference: pp. 17–20, paras. 28–32

RSO 26(15), read with Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1980, operates as an executive instruction and cannot override statute or Article 300-A, or independently transfer private title to the State.

Source reference: pp. 22–27, paras. 35–42

Under Article 300-A, deprivation of property requires authority of law and due process; the Court relied on *Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh*, (2020) 2 SCC 569, and *Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah*, (2024) 10 SCC 533, among other authorities, on that protection and the safeguards attending deprivation.

Source reference: pp. 28–35, paras. 45–53

Sections 4, 15 and 18 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 recognise easements, including rights acquired by prescription and local custom; dedication may also establish a public right of way.

Source reference: pp. 39–44, paras. 60–65

Section 14 of the 1905 Act bars challenges to proceedings under that Act, but did not bar the petitioners’ suit, which pre-dated those proceedings.

Source reference: p. 48, paras. 70–71

Reasoning

The Court held that the revenue entry and RSO 26(15) could not, without a legally recognised mode of transfer, convert the petitioners’ patta land into State property.

Source reference: pp. 36–39, paras. 54–58

The records did not support the respondents’ assertion that the pathway through the petitioners’ land was 8.6 metres wide; the materials indicated a width of about four metres, and the respondents did not produce documents explaining the wider clearance.

Source reference: pp. 45–47, paras. 66–69

The removal of trees to create or restore a wider road therefore exceeded the permissible scope of maintaining a plan-marked pathway and infringed the petitioners’ property rights.

Source reference: pp. 36–39, 45–47, paras. 54–58, 66–69

The Court nevertheless preserved any established public right of way, distinguishing that right from State ownership, and held that any expansion or transfer of ownership required lawful acquisition and compensation.

Source reference: pp. 39–48, paras. 59–71

It also rejected the Section 14 objection because the civil suit had been filed before the Land Encroachment Act proceedings began.

Source reference: pp. 39–48, paras. 59–71

Holding

The Court held that RSO 26(15) does not itself vest private pathway land in the Government; the landowner retains title subject to any established public right of way, whose width must be maintained according to the available revenue records.

Any expansion or transfer of ownership requires acquisition under law and payment of compensation.

Source reference: pp. 49–52, para. 74

The Section 6 notice dated 12.06.2026 was quashed for failure to consider the petitioners’ objections, which the authorities were directed to decide on their merits consistently with the Court’s clarification.

Source reference: pp. 52–53, paras. 75–76

The Court recognised the petitioners’ entitlement to seek compensation for the felled trees before the competent civil court and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the fourth respondent, payable by the State and recoverable from that officer.

Source reference: pp. 52–53, paras. 75–76

The writ petition was allowed.

Source reference: pp. 52–53, paras. 75–76