- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 10 July 2026
- Bench
- G. Jayachandran, S Justice N. Mala
- Case no.
- WP 25655/2022
Judgment
O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.) The writ petition is filed alleging that respondents 5 to 7 have made encroachments in S.No.190/1, Edapadi Taluk, Salem District, which is classified as "Pathai Poramboke," and further alleging that respondents 1 to 4 have attempted to form road in the patta lands of the petitioners situated in S.Nos.187/1C, 187/1F, 190/2B, 190/2D, 190/2G, and 190/2H.
¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Patta No.3009 issued in the names of Vellaiya Gounder, Chinnarasu, and Raji (the petitioner herein) and the A-Register of the village which shows S.No.190/1 as Government Poramboke classified as "Pathai," submitted that instead of laying the road in S.No.190/1, the officials are attempting to lay the road in the petitioner's patta lands.
¶3The counter filed by the 4th respondent, Block Development Officer, Edapadi, categorically states that S.No.190/1 is classified as pathway and is being used by the residents of the locality as pathway. It is further stated that there is no encroachment in the said pathway. However, when an attempt was made to lay pucca road in S.No.190/1, the petitioner and others objected and hence the proposal was dropped. Page Nos.3/6
¶4Insofar as the patta lands of the petitioner are concerned, it is categorically stated that the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless and that the respondents 1 to 4 have not made any attempt to lay road in his patta lands.
¶5In paragraph No.7 of the status report, it is reiterated as follows: "It is humbly submitted that at present, there is no proposal to lay any road in S.No.190/1 as stated by the petitioner, and it is a baseless apprehension of the petitioner that respondents 1 to 4 are going to lay road in his patta lands, which proposal was dropped long back."
¶6Recording the above submission of the 4th respondent, we dispose of the writ petition, making it clear that there is no impediment for the authorities to lay a road in S.No.190/1, which is classified as "Pathai," and that there shall not be any attempt to lay road in the patta lands owned by the petitioner, for which the Revenue Authorities have issued patta. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (N.MALA, J.) 10-07-2026 Index :Yes/No. :Yes/No. bsm Page Nos.4/6 To,
1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem
2.The Revenue Divisional officer, Sankari Salem District
3.The Tahsildar,
4.The Block Development Officer, Edapadi Union, Page Nos.5/6 W.P.eNo.25655eofe2022 Dr.oG.JAYACHANDRAN,oJ. AND N.MALA,oJ. bsm W.P.No.25655oofo2022 & W.M.P.No.24662oofo2022 10-07-2026 PageeNos.6/6
Case details
Parties and counsel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA W.P.No.25655 of 2022 & W.M.P.No.24662 of 2022 V.Raji, S/o Vellaya Gounder, Nadu Akkraipatty, Irupali Village, … Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari, 3.The Tahsildar, 4.The Block Development Officer, Edapadi Union, Salem District 5.Mathesh, S/o.Muthukaruppan, Nadu Akkraipatty, Irupali Village, Page Nos.1/6 6.Arumugam, S/o Muthukaruppan, Nadu Akkraipatty, Irupali Village, 7.Arumugam, S/o Muthu, Nadu Akkraipatty, Irupali Village, … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 5 to 7 in survey No. 190/1 of irupali village, Edapadi taluk, Salem District which is classified as pathai poramboke and restore the pathway in its original position consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to form any road in petitioner patta land in survey numbers 187/1C, 187/1F, 190/2B 190/2D, 190/2G and 190/2H of Irupaali village, Edapadi taluk, salem District by considering the representation dated 17.08.2022 and 29.08.2022 For Petitioner: Mr.V.Regunathan For Respondents: Mr.B.Sivakollappan, Govt. Advocate, for R1 to R4. No appearance, for R5 to R7 Page Nos.2/6
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.