R.Ramana Prasath v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER W.P.(MD)No.3891 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.3192, 3193 and 3195 of 2026 R.Ramana Prasath ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

2.The Surveyor, Katchakatti, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Revenue Inspector (Waterbody), Katchakatti, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

5.Vinoth 6.Karuppaiah ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the 1/8

records relating to the impugned survey notice issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2094/AA3/2025, dated 06.02.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus of his powers, consequently, to direct the first respondent to refer the respondents 5 and 6 to approach civil Court to establish their right of path way if any through the petitioner's ashram patta lands, further direct the respondent (including private respondents 5 & 6), their servants,a gents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of "Swami Ramanagiri Ashram" property through illegal means or what so ever manner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Sivaram For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian, (for R1 to R3) Government Advocate Mr.S.Prakash (for R4) Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.A.S.Rajeswari (for R5)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned survey notice issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2094/AA3/2025, dated 06.02.2026 and consequently to direct the first respondent to refer the respondents 5 and 6 to approach civil Court to establish their right of path way if any through the petitioner's ashram patta lands, further to 2/8

direct the respondent (including private respondents 5 & 6), their servants,a gents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of "Swami Ramanagiri Ashram" property through illegal means or what so ever manner.

2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the sixth respondent, notice to the sixth respondent is hereby dispensed with.

4. The impugned memorandum dated 06.02.2026 states that the pathway lies on the land belonging to the petitioner's Ashram and that the petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the Ramanagiri Charity Trust and Ashram. The said pathway is used by devotees and villagers to access the Ramanalayam Ashram. The memorandum further states that the petitioner had erected a fence and installed a locked gate, thereby completely blocking public access and hindering agricultural activities and public movement.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that Swami Ramanagiri 3/8

purchased the land situated in S.F. Nos. 28/1, 28/2, and 26, measuring an extent of 8.86 acres, by way of three sale deeds bearing Nos. 954, 956, and 957 of 1953, dated 20.04.1953. The ashram has a pathway entrance on the western side of the patta land leading to the shrine. However, the trustees of the nearby Ramanalayam Ashram, situated on the eastern side of the Ramanagiri Ashram, have created disturbances by claiming that a pathway runs through the petitioner's private patta land. The further grievance of the petitioner is that villagers and others are accessing the Ramanalayam Ashram through the petitioner's patta land. Hence, the present petition is filed.

6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that if the pathway is situated in patta land, mere usage would not entitle the authority to lay a road. Due process for the acquisition of patta land must be undertaken before laying any road.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that apart from the pathway in dispute, there is another pathway leading to the Ramanalayam Ashram.

8. The issue was earlier come up before this Court in 4/8

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23245 of 2025, this Court passed the following order vide order dated 17.12.2025:

6. Upon perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioners are devotees of Ramana Ashram, while the defacto complainant claims ownership of the pathway and asserts an easementary right over the same. However, neither party has approached the competent Civil Court to establish their respective claims. This Court has repeatedly held that when a dispute of this nature arises between parties, they must seek appropriate relief before the Civil Court. Despite such observations, the parties have declined to do so, which practice is deprecated. Therefore, the parties are directed to approach the appropriate Civil Court to establish their respective rights. As far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, the respondent is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

9. Since this Court has already determined that the parties have to approach the appropriate civil court to establish their rights, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot conduct a land survey to determine that the land classified as a pathway does not belong to Ramanagiri Ashram. The claim over the said pathway, as already observed by this Court, is subject 5/8

to any appropriate relief that may be granted by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the parties are directed to approach the appropriate civil Court.

10. In view of the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(K.SURENDER, J.) 11.02.2026 vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No 6/8

To 1.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

2.The Surveyor, Katchakatti, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Revenue Inspector (Waterbody), Katchakatti, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

7/8

K.SURENDER, J., vsg W.P (MD) No.3891 of 2026 11.02.2026 8/8