Vandipathai poramboke must remain so to preserve adjoining landholders’ access rights.

The petitioner challenged the District Collector’s order dated 5 September 2019 proposing to convert land in Survey No. 1693/1, classified in the revenue records as “Sarkar Poramboke – Vandipathai,” into Natham.

He claimed to use the pathway to access his agricultural land and sought removal of encroachments by the private respondents.

The State submitted that the proposed conversion was intended to recognise existing occupation, but should not affect the petitioner’s ingress and egress; the private respondents relied on their long-standing possession.

Whether the Revenue Authorities could convert land classified as “Sarkar Poramboke – Vandipathai” into Natham to recognise private occupation.

Whether the proposed conversion could be permitted where it might affect the petitioner’s and other adjoining landholders’ right of access.

The Court applied the principle that a Vandipathai is intended to provide access and ingress and egress to adjoining lands, and cannot be converted or altered so as to impair those access rights.

It held that the land classified as Vandipathai Poramboke must be maintained as such and cannot be converted into Natham in a manner affecting the pathway or access.

The judgment cited no specific statute or precedent; the petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The revenue records admittedly classified Survey No. 1693 as “Sarkar Poramboke – Vandipathai”.

Because the pathway served the access needs of adjoining landholders, the proposed conversion—made primarily to recognise certain persons’ occupation—could not be allowed if it affected the existing pathway or the petitioner’s access to his agricultural land.

The Court made no finding on the private respondents’ possession or entitlement.

It directed the Revenue Authorities to maintain Survey No. 1693 as “Sarkar Poramboke – Vandipathai,” without conversion into Natham, so as to preserve the ingress and egress of the petitioner and others entitled to use the pathway.

Any proposal to grant patta to landless poor persons was to be considered only in respect of unobjectionable Government land, without affecting the pathway.

No costs were ordered.