Kasirajan v. Shanmugam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P(MD)No.1980 of 2025 Kasirajan ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. Shanmugam

2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), Buildings and Maintenance, Keeranur, Pudukkottai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

4. The State Represented by, The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition - filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No. 227/2024 on the file of learned Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.N.Anandha Kumar for R1 Mr.B.Saravanan Addl. Government Pleader for R2 to R4

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed for a direction to strike off the plaint filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.227 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

2. The petitioner is the fourth defendant in O.S. No.227 of 2024, pending before the District Judge, Pudukottai. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking a declaration that they are the owner and titleholder of the suit property, claiming adverse possession of the scheduled property and for a permanent injunction. However, without any title or supporting documents, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit vexatiously against the Government, including the petitioner. Consequently, this civil revision petition is filed to strike off the plaint. 2/6

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court had previously directed the Government to produce the 'A' Register to determine the classification of the property involved in the present suit. In compliance with this Court's direction, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced the 'A' Register. Upon review, it was revealed that Survey No. 9/2, Kumaramangalam Village, Kulathur Village, Pudukottai District, is classified as 'Arasu Poramboke Salai'. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for this Court to allow the civil revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner has been occupying the property for over 15 years alongside other encroachers and possesses tax receipts issued by local authorities and electricity bills. However, the learned counsel did not dispute that the land is classified as 'Arasu Poramboke Salai'. He further requested that this Court grant liberty to the first respondent/plaintiff to pursue remedies available under the law, if the respondents 2 to 4 issue an eviction notice.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

3/6

6. In the present case on hand, the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the Government, claiming adverse possession over road poramboke. Adverse possession cannot be claimed on road poramboke, which is designated solely for public use. Given this classification, the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff is vexatious and any encroachment on salai poramboke must be removed in accordance with the law.

7. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed and the plaint is struck out. However, the first respondent/plaintiff is granted liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. 07.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN 4/6

To

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), Buildings and Maintenance, Keeranur, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3. The State Represented by, The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

4. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5.The Principal District Court, Pudukottai.

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

PKN C.R.P.(MD)No.1980 of 2025 07.08.2025 6/6