C.Subramani v. The District Revenue Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2022 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR C.Subramani .. Petitioner Vs 1.The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District, Erode.
3.C.Jaganathan 4.N.Eswaramoorthy 5.M.Rajendran 6.S.Mohanasundaram 7.Samiappan 8.S.Logasamy 9.S.Krishnamurthy 10.K.Samidurai 11.T.C.Gnanasekaran 12.A.M.Vijayanandan 13.Krishnamurthy .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the order dated 12.10.2022 made in Na.Ka.11002/2022/Oo1 on the file of the first respondent confirming the order dated 05.02.2022 made in Na.Ka.5161/2021/A2 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.
For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Spl. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) Mr.C.Subramani, son of Chinnasamy Gounder, carrying agricultural activities in the lands situated in Survey Nos.296/5, 296/1, 2, 4, 296/6 and 296/7 of Villarasampatti Village, Erode Taluk and District, has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 made in Na.Ka.No.11002/2022/Oo1 by the first
respondent, confirming the order dated 5.2.2022 made in Na.Ka.No.5161/2021/A2 by the second respondent.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities in his lands and right from the beginning a cart-tract is available on the western side of his agricultural land which runs in south to north direction. The said cart-tract is being used by all the adjacent land owners for ingress and egress to their respective agricultural lands. While so, respondents 3 to 13, who are also using the cart-tract, had created an obstruction. As a result, the petitioner is unable to use the carttract/common pathway. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file a civil suit, being O.S.No.337 of 2021, for permanent injunction before the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode, wherein summons have been served on the defendants, including the official respondents, and now the suit is posted for filing written statement on 02.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that after the receipt of
summons in the suit, respondents 3 to 13, instead of filing written statement in the suit, have filed a petition before the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore and the second respondent has also disposed of the said petition holding that carttrack existed for more than 40 years.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner specifically stated that he has filed a civil suit against the respondents for permanent injunction in respect of the pathway/cart-tract in O.S.No.337 of 2021, the second respondent without considering the factual position came to a wrong conclusion that an encroachment has been made by the petitioner and the same is liable to be removed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an appeal has been filed before the first respondent challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 5.2.2022 by specifically pleading and proving that the land in question is a pathway which is being used by the adjacent land owners and that
there is no encroachment made by the petitioner. However, the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 12.10.2022, wrongly confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while concluding his argument, would submit that when the petitioner is using the carttract/pathway for several decades without any hindrance, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
7. Opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the official respondents have already initiated steps to remove all the encroachments made in the common pathway/cart-tract.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
9. Since the petitioner is one of the encroachers, there is
nothing wrong in removing the encroachment made by him in the pathway/cart-tract. A reading of the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the first respondent would clearly show that the petitioner himself admitted that he has encroached in the carttract/pathway.
10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that removal of encroachment should not begin from his side and it should be started from the other side. We do not find any justification in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner himself admitted that he is an encroacher.
11. Since an encroachment on the pathway/cart-tract, which is meant for public use, has been made by the encroachers, including the petitioner herein, we hereby direct the official respondents to remove all the encroachments made in the public pathway/cart-tract in question within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and file a status report before this
Court.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.27592 of 2022 is closed.
List for reporting compliance after eight weeks. (T.R., ACJ.) (D.K.K., J.) 26.10.2022 Index : No bbr To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District, Erode.
T.RAJA, ACJ.
AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
bbr 26.10.2022