Pavayee v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WP No. 6901 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.7608 of 2025
1. Pavayee Wo.Late.P.Ganapathy, Periyeri Village And Post, Thalivasal Post, Salem District 2.G.P.Arul Arashu S/o.Late.P.Ganapathy, Periyeri Village And Post, Thalivasal Post, Salem District 3.G.Anbu Kumar S/o.Late.P.Ganapathy, Periyeri Village And Post, Thalivasal Post, Salem District Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector Salem District, Salem 2.The Assistant Collector District Rural Development Agency,
Salem 3.The Tahsildar Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem District 4.The Block Development Officer Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Thalaivasal Post, Salem District Respondent(s) PRAYER Forbear Respondents 1 to 4 from interfering with the patta lands for laying a public road in Survey No.379/6 measuring 1.20.5 hectare situated at Periyeri, Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem District.
For Petitioner(s):
M.S.Palaniswamy V.Ravichandran P.K.Shiva Kumar R.Soundhari J.Lingitha For RR1 to 3 For R4 Ms.Meera Arumugam, AGP Mr.M.Rajendiran, AGP
ORDER
The issue raised in the writ petition should be rightly addressed by a suit for declaration that the petitioners are entitled for the entire extent of the property, and that there does not exist a cart track over their land. This is
because clause 7 of the Assignment, on the basis of which the grant of land was made, produced by Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, discloses a condition of the assignment that the petitioner shall not obliterate any cart track/pathway running over the said property.
2. Though Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, refers to earlier judgment and decree dated 18.9.2000 passed in A.S.No.19 of 1998 on the file of Sub Judge, Attur, I am of the view that the plea raised in the writ petition requires evidence, both oral and documentary, in order to proceed further. While the learned counsel submits that no pathway exists, the FMB produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent indicates that there has been a pre-existing pathway.
3. These are disputes on facts, which would not be proper to probe into in a writ petition.
4. Mr.Palaniswamy seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a suit before the jurisdictional court.
5. I consider the request of Mr.Palaniswamy reasonable. The liberty sought for by Mr.Palaniswamy is granted. He shall move the jurisdictional civil
court for appropriate reliefs, if he is so advised.
6. I notice that an interim order of status quo order has been granted by this court and it is continuing till date. Such order shall continue for a further period of four weeks from today. On expiry of the four weeks, the interim order shall expire. It is open to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil court and obtain appropriate interim orders. As the entire papers have already been served on the State, the same shall be treated as notice under Section 80 of CPC. It is also open to the petitioner to move an application before the jurisdictional civil court to dispense with notice.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above observations. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
09-10-2025 ssk.
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The District Collector Salem District, Salem 2.The Assistant Collector District Rural Development Agency, Salem 3.The Tahsildar Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem District 4.The Block Development Officer Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Thalaivasal Post, Salem District
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
ssk.
WP No. 6901 of 2025 09-10-2025