P. Pichayammal vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 1501 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1501 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2025

Madras High Court

P. Pichayammal vs The District Collector on 6 January, 2025

Author: M. Sundar

Bench: M. Sundar

W.P. No.37293 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

W.P. No.37293 of 2024

P. Pichayammal Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector
Salem District
Office of the District Collector
Salem

2. The District Revenue Officer
Salem District
Office of the District Revenue Officer
Salem

3. The Block Development Officer
BDO Office, Vazhappady
Salem District

4. The Tahsildar
Salem Taluk
Salem District

5. Ramani

6. Shanthi Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to

declare that the 12 feet common pathway belongs to Vazhapadi

Panchayat, situated at Mullai Nagar, Sindhu Automobile Lane, South

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.37293 of 2024

side of Survey No.32/3E1, Vazhapadi Village, from Union Office Road,

this pathway registered as Grama Natham in the Village record and

considering the petitioner's representations dated 26.08.2024.

For petitioner Mr. R.K. Gandhi
For RR 1 to 4 Mr. M.S. Arasakumar
Government Advocate

ORDER

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)

This order will now dispose of the captioned 'writ petition' ('WP'

for the sake of brevity).

2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in

continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on

16.12.2024 which reads as follows:

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR. J.,]

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 12.12.2024 which reads as follows:

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J., [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR. J.,] It is submitted by learned State Counsel that a suit pertaining to same property is pending.
List in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List under the cause list caption 'ADJOURNED ADMISSION' on Monday.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

List on 16.12.2024.'

2. Mr.R.K.Gandhi, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before us.

3. Issue notice to official respondents i.e., R1 to R4.

4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for official respondents i.e., R1 to R4.

5. From the submissions, it comes to light that there appears to be three suits namely, O.S.Nos.593 and 1067 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Salem and O.S.No.68 of 2010 on the file of IIII Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. However, there is a confusion with papers. Both sides request for time to place all papers particularly, judgments and decrees in the aforesaid three suits. Common request acceded to.

List three weeks hence under the same cause list caption i.e., 'ADJOURNED ADMISSION' in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List.

List on 06.01.2025.'

3. Adverting to the earlier proceedings dated 16.12.2024,

Mr.R.K. Gandhi, learned counsel for writ petitioner and

Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned State counsel for official respondents (RR

1 to 4) submitted in one voice that all the three suits have since been

disposed of and they pertain to another six ft. pathway. In other

words, it is submitted that the three suits do not pertain to the 4 ft.

pathway which is subject matter of captioned WP.

4. Learned State counsel submits, on instructions, that there

is no public pathway and it is purely a private dispute between the writ

petitioner on one side and RR 5/6 on the other side.

5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner also submits that the

writ petitioner's grievance is qua RR 5 and 6.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. In this view of the matter, we have no difficulty or

hesitation in writing that the writ petitioner has to work out his

remedies only by way of a civil suit as against RR 5 and 6 as it is not a

case of public pathway.

7. Though obvious, we write that all the rights and

contentions of writ petitioner, R5 and R6 and any other person who

may be made party to the civil suit will stand preserved if a civil suit is

filed qua subject matter pathway. In other words, if a civil suit qua

subject matter pathway is initiated, rights and contentions of the

parties thereat will stand preserved untrammelled by disposal of this

WP. Suffice to say that this Court is not interfering as it is not a case of

public pathway.

8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is dismissed, albeit

with preservation of rights and contentions in the aforesaid manner.

There shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                           (M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
                                                                                  06.01.2025
                     Index : Yes/No
                     NC    : Yes/No
                     cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To:

1. The District Collector Salem District Office of the District Collector Salem

2. The District Revenue Officer Salem District Office of the District Revenue Officer Salem

3. The Block Development Officer BDO Office, Vazhappady Salem District

4. The Tahsildar Salem Taluk Salem District

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M. SUNDAR, J.

and

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad

06.01.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis