[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Bino Deva Kumar on 6 January, 2026
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.09.2025
Pronounced On : 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3312 and 3316 of 2021
S.A.(MD).No.230 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the District Collector,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
2.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
3.The Range Officer,
Azhagiapandiapuram Range,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thovalai Taluk,
kanyakumari district. Appellants
Vs.
Bino Deva Kumar Respondent
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
PRAYER:- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of
Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2019 in
A.S.No.49 of 2015, on the file of the learned Additional district and
Sessions Judge, Nagercoil which partly reversed the judgment and decree
dated 31.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the learned
Special Court, (Forest Offence Cases), Nagercoil and allow this Second
Appeal.
For Appellants :Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
:Mr.M.Muthu Manikkam
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
For Respondent :Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar for
: Mr.A.Balakrishnan
**
S.A.(MD).No.236 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the District Collector,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
2.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
3.The Range Officer,
Azhagiapandiapuram Range,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thovalai Taluk,
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
kanyakumari district. Appellants
Vs.
Bino Deva Kumar Respondent
PRAYER:- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of
Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2019 in
A.S.No.129 of 2018, on the file of the learned Additional district and
Sessions Judge, Nagercoil confirming the judgment and decree dated
31.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special
Court, (Forest Offence Cases), Nagercoil and allow this Second Appeal.
For Appellants :Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
:Mr.M.Muthu Manikkam
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
For Respondent :Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar for
: Mr.A.Balakrishnan
COMMONJUDGMENT
The Government, which is the second defendant in O.S.No.1 of
2014, has preferred the present appeal challenging the decree passed in
O.S.No.1 of 2014 and the modified decree passed in A.S.No.129 of 2018.
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
2.For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the parties
are hereinafter referred to according to their respective ranks as assigned
before the trial Court.
3.The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property known as Lower
Victoria Estate. The said estate is situated in R.S.No.781/1 and R.S.No.
782/2 of Azhagiapandipuram Village, measuring an extent of 11 acres
and 46 cents. In the said land, rubber trees, two sets of tea plantations,
silver oak trees, and jack trees are standing. The suit property was
acquired by the plaintiff under a registered settlement deed dated
16.03.2007. For the said property, B-Schedule property is a pathway
known as Nadugani Thadam, also referred to as Nadugani Thadam.
The said Nadugani Thadam has been in existence for more than 200
years and has been used to reach the A-Schedule property. Even prior to
the plaintiff’s purchase, the pathway existed in the suit land and was the
only means of access to the A-Schedule property. The plaintiff was
employing about 90 workers along with their family members in the
estate. Except Nadugani Thadam pathway, there is no other access to
reach the plaintiff’s land.
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
3.1.In the year 1991, the entire B-Schedule pathway was washed
away due to floods. Since then, the plaintiff has been trudging along the
pathway with great difficulty and without any renovation. After the flood,
the pathway became rugged and extremely difficult to use without
maintenance. The Nadugani Thadam has a width of 6 feet and a length
of about 5.4 kilometres.
3.2.Therefore, the plaintiff made representations to the
Government authorities seeking to removal of Nadugani Thadam. As
there was no response, the plaintiff issued a statutory notice under
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which evoked no reply.
Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration
and mandatory injunction in respect of the B-Schedule pathway.
3.3.The defendants, namely, the Government officials including
the Forest Department, filed a written statement admitting that a pathway
had existed from time immemorial, and it is now known as Nadugani
Thadam, but contended that its width was only 6 feet and not 10 feet. It
was further stated that the Forest Department had not used the pathway
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
since 1961, that it was not a public pathway, and that the plaintiff had no
right to seek renovation. The defendants contended that the pathway was
almost abandoned, unfit for use, and that the plaintiff was a trespasser
with no legal right of easement or declaration against the Government.
3.4.Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the trial Court
framed necessary issues and partly decreed the suit, declaring the
plaintiff’s right to use the pathway, while granting a mandatory
injunction permitting renovation at the plaintiff’s cost.
3.5.Aggrieved by the same, both the Government and the plaintiff
filed first appeals before the Principal District Court, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. The first appellate Court dismissed the
Government appeal, confirmed the plaintiff’s right of usage over the
pathway, and upheld the decree of mandatory injunction, permitting
renovation to the extent of 6 feet width and 2.5 kilometres length.
3.6.Aggrieved thereby, the Government has preferred the present
Second Appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
questions of law:
(1) Whether the Courts below were correct in
holding that the B schedule property is in earth?
(2) Whether the Courts below were right in
holding that the B schedule property is the only pathway
to reach the plaintiff's property?
(3) Whether the Courts below were right in
granting declaration in respect of B schedule property in
favour of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the Courts below were right in
granting permanent injunction in respect of B schedule
property in favour of the plaintiff?
(5) Whether the Courts below were right in
granting the relief of mandatory injunction in favour of
the plaintiff?
(6) Whether the Courts below were right in
considering the correct extent of the B Schedule
property by comparing the Advocate Commissioner's
Report?
4.The learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by the
learned Government Advocate, would contend that the plaintiff’s claim is
not legally sustainable as the suit property falls within a Reserved
Forest. It is argued that the plaintiff himself admitted that the pathway
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
was washed away in the floods in the year 1991 floods and therefore no
declaration or mandatory injunction could have been granted.
4.1.It is further contended that the first appellate Court failed to
consider that the area falls within a protected forest zone governed by the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that no individual can claim a
right of pathway, including an easement, over forest land.
4.2.The learned counsel would further submit that in view of the
provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the suit itself is not
maintainable and therefore prays that the judgments of the Courts below
be set aside and the suit be dismissed.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
records of the Land Revenue / Appeal Board disclose that the pathway
had been in existence even prior to 1961, and that the said pathway got
damaged during the floods in the year 1991, after which it has been used
without renovation. Representations were submitted to the District
Administration, and under the Right to Information Act, the authorities
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
replied that, subject to exigencies, renovation works would be
undertaken.
5.1.These materials were considered by both the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court, which granted the relief of declaration and
consequential injunction. Both the Courts, on proper appreciation of facts
and documentary evidence, including the evidence of the Forest
Department, recorded concurrent findings that the pathway existed prior
to 1961 and that the plaintiff was entitled to use the same. It was further
held that without access through the pathway, the plaintiff could not
enjoy or manage the estate situated within the reserve forest.
5.2.It was further submitted that similar roads have been laid and
maintained for other plantation units and estate holders, and that the
authorities have adopted different standards for different persons. Taking
into account the factual situation, the First Appellate Court permitted the
plaintiff to carry out renovation work to the extent of 6 feet in width and
about 2.15 kilometres in length, and submitted that such findings were
purely factual and did not warrant interference.
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
5.3.With respect to the applicability of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, it was contended that even as per the grounds of appeal,
vehicular usage within the reserve forest is permitted for purposes of
maintenance and management of forest areas, and therefore there is no
absolute bar to the petitioner using motor vehicles. It was also pointed
out that several other persons similarly situated in the estate and reserve
forest areas have been permitted such usage.
5.4.In reply, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the appellants, contended that the plea of parity was never raised
before the Trial Court, nor was there any pleading to that effect, and
therefore the said contention is liable to be rejected. It was further
submitted that in view of the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act,
the respondent cannot claim, as a matter of right, either for renovation of
the pathway or for the use of motor vehicles within the reserve forest.
5.5.The learned counsel for the respondent, in rejoinder, submitted
that without the use of motor vehicles, it would be impossible to manage
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
and enjoy the forest land. It was further contended that for transporting
agricultural and forest produce such as pepper and other yields, use of
the road is indispensable. Hence, the respondent prayed for confirmation
of the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
7.From the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below,
on a careful appreciation of the evidence of the Forest officials as well as
the plaintiff’s witnesses, plaintiff clearly established that the Nadugani
Thadam (pathway) exists throughout a stretch of about 2.5 to 3
kilometres with a width of approximately 6 feet to reach plaintiff's
'A' schedule property. Both the Courts have categorically held that the
pathway described as 'B' schedule property has been in existence for
several decades and that there is no alternative access to the plaintiff’s
'A' schedule property. Any obstruction to the pathway would cause
serious prejudice to the plaintiff, as without the pathway, the plaintiff
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
would be unable to enjoy or utilise the suit property.
8. The right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, is a
constitutional right under Article 300-A, and the right of access is an
instance of the right to property. The right to use a pathway is
intrinsically connected with the effective enjoyment of property. The
enactments relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General,
namely the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, regulate the use and conservation of forest
land. In the present case, there is no question of conservation of forest
land, but only restoration and renovation of the existing pathway.
There is no alteration or extinguishment of any right. The narrowing of
the pathway from 6 feet to 2–3 feet has occurred only due to the floods in
the year 1991, and the plaintiff now seeks merely the restoration of the
original width.
9.The principal apprehension expressed by the learned Additional
Advocate General is that the area falls within a Tiger Reserve /
protected forest, and that permitting vehicular movement would disturb
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
wildlife. This Court is unable to accept the said contention, particularly
when the appellants themselves admit that Forest Department vehicles
are regularly used for supervision and administration within the same
area. In such circumstances, the contention that the use of the plaintiff’s
vehicle alone would disturb wildlife is untenable and misconceived.
10.It is also on record that during the course of the first appeal, a
specific plea was raised that several other estate owners, factories, and
plantations situated within the forest area have been permitted to lay and
use roads. In such circumstances, singling out the plaintiff and denying
him permission to renovate the pathway that too at his own cost would be
arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
11.A pathway is jugular vein of land. When the said vein is
severed, practically he would lose his bread and butter. The fruitful
enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property has been impeded for reasons
extraneous to law and hence, the first appellate Court correctly granted
decree for mandatory injunction to restoration of the pathway which had
been damaged due to un proceeded rainfall happened in the year 1991 at
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
his own costs and the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court relating to the existence of pathway as described in the
“B” scheduled suit property and the decree of the learned first appellate
judge to restore the pathway at the plaintiff's costs do not suffer from any
perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
12.Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in these Second Appeals.
All the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants.
The Second Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.01.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sbn
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
S.A.(MD)Nos.230 and 236 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3312 and 3316 of 2021
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 06:51:35 pm )
