Madras High Court
Nabeeza Beevi vs The District Collector on 12 July, 2023
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023
Nabeeza Beevi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Thasildhar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Diravidar Welfare Department,
Ramanathapuram District.
5. The Head Surveyor,
Ramanathapuram Taluka,
Ramanathapuram District.
6. The Panchayat Secretary,
Peravur Panchayat,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
remove the barbed wiring fencing put up on the 450 sq. feet
pathway / approach road Ramanathapuram town by conducting
survey and measure the land situated at Survey No.69/2A and
69/1B1A in Pattinamkathan revenue village, Ramanathapuram Taluk,
by considering the petition in No.TN/RDPR/RMD/P/COLLMGDP/
14NOV22/4610026 dated 14/11/2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
The writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to remove the barbed wire fencing put up
on the 450 sq. feet pathway / approach road in Ramanathapuram
Town by conducting a survey and measuring the land situated at
Survey Nos.69/2A and 69/1B1A in Pattinamkathan Revenue Village,
Ramanathapuram Taluk, by considering the petition in
No.TN/RDPR/RMD/P/COLLMGDP/ 14NOV22/4610026 dated
14/11/2022.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
2. The petitioner is the owner of a plot in Survey No.69/1B
in Pattinamkathan Revenue Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk. It is his
case that an east-west pathway is in existence to have access to his
property in the said survey number from the main road towards
Ramanathapuram Town. It is also stated that the petitioner is using
that pathway from the year 2000 onwards. Though the petitioner
referred to a suit filed by one Shanmugavalli in O.S.No.67/2021, this
Court finds no relevance of the said suit to the present issue and the
petitioner has not produced the copy of the judgment passed in the
said suit. When the parties to the said suit are not parties before
this Court, this Court is unable to rely upon or to follow the
judgment in the said suit to the present case. It is the grievance of
the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has closed the aforesaid
pathway on 23.05.2013 by fencing it along with his property.
3. In short, this Court is able to see that the petitioner is
claiming his right of easement over the property of the 3rd
respondent. The existence of the alleged pathway or its enjoyment
by the petitioner is not established by any document or material like
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
revenue records. The petitioner has submitted a representation for
restoration of the pathway to the width of 15 feet by alleging that
the said pathway was available previously.
4. In the writ petition, the specific case of the petitioner is
that the aforesaid pathway is in existence in Survey Nos.69/2A and
69/1B1A in Pattinamkathan Revenue Village, Ramanathapuram
Taluk. Even as per the revenue records, the property in Survey No.
69/2A is classified as a land allotted by the Adi-dravidar Welfare
Department for common purpose and that there is no pathway
therein as alleged by the petitioner. Even though the pathway is
stated to be in Survey No.69/2B out of the total extent of 7.5 ares,
the petitioner is unable to demonstrate before this Court how he was
enjoying this 15 feet pathway to have access to his property. The
properties in the neighboring survey fields are registered in the
holdings of private individuals and therefore, this Court is unable to
grant any relief. However, the petitioner may establish his right of
easement before the civil court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
5. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the
competent civil court and work out his remedy. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R, J.] [D.B.C., J.]
12.07.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Thasildhar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Diravidar Welfare Department,
Ramanathapuram District.
5. The Head Surveyor,
Ramanathapuram Taluka,
Ramanathapuram District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bala
6. The Panchayat Secretary,
Peravur Panchayat,
Ramanathapuram District.
W.P(MD)No.15318 of 2023
12.07.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
