A.Jagadeesan, v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum The Revenue Divisional Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl. RC No. 1623 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.16627 of 2025 A.Jagadeesan, S/o.Arunachalam, No.425, Manickampalayam, Kadapanallur Pirivukurichi, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cumThe Revenue Divisional officer, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

2. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vellithiruppur Police Station, Erode District.

3. The Thasildar, Bhavani Taluk, Erode district.

4. P.Jothimani W/o. Palanivel,

5. P.Sasikumar, S/o.Palanivel,

6. Palanivel S/o. Arthanari Gounder, Respondents 5 to 7 are residing at, No.36/4, GH Road, Olagadam Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

7. C.M.Palanisamy, S/o. Muthusamy Gounder, Residing at Chinnapalayam, Jambai, Erode District.

8. Selvakumar S/o. Palanisamy, Pachapalli, Mailampadi, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the proceedings dated 22.09.2022 passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.5069/2022/a 2. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.C.Uma Shankar For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2 M/S. D. Selvaraju for R4 to R6

ORDER

The revision challenges the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 22.09.2022, directing the 'A' party, who are the respondents 4 to 6, to continue to be in possession of their property, which is 1/3rd of the entire extent in Survey No. 368/3 and directing the 'B' party, who are the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8, to continue to be in possession of their 2/3rd share in

the land in Survey No. 368/3.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to possession of their respective shares in the property. However, there is a reference in the order which states that a shed in the land belonging to the 'B' party belongs to the 'A' party. The said observation appears to be a factual error.

3. The security room is in fact situated on the land in possession of the 'B' party. It is also seen that there is a cart track that has been used by the 'A' party to reach a shed situated, which is in the far end of the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that instead of using the said pathway, the 'A' party persons are attempting to use the pathway passing through the land of the 'B'party.

4. It is clarified that the pathway that has been used by the 'A' party thus far shall continue to be used by them until the rights of the respective parties are decided by the Civil Court. It is made clear that the security room situated in the land belonging to the 'B' party shall be used by the 'B' party until further orders.

5. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 25-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MAC To

1. The Sub Divisional magistrate-Cum-the Revenue Divisional officer, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

2. The Inspector Of Police, Vellithiruppur Police Station, Erode District.

3. The Thasildar, Bhavani Taluk, Erode district.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

MAC Crl. RC No. 1623 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.no.16627 of 2025 25-02-2026