N. Kumaresan vs. The District Collector

Facts

The petitioner, N. Kumaresan, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to prevent the respondents, particularly the Forest Range Officer, from interfering with his patta land in Survey No. 409/18B, Thiruvattar Village, Kalkulam Taluk. The petitioner contended that any acquisition of his land for public use must follow due process. The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the said survey number contains a narrow strip of pathway which is the sole access to the Forest Range Office and a Taluk Hospital. They asserted that the public has been using this pathway for a long time, and blocking it would cause public inconvenience. The District Forest Officer was present and confirmed this fact. The respondents also produced a sale deed dated 27.07.2015, executed by the petitioner's principal, which described the public pathway as the western boundary of the property.

Held

The Court held that the writ sought by the petitioner could not be issued. While the survey number 409/18B was technically patta land in the name of the petitioner's predecessor, the Court was satisfied, based on the materials on record including photographs and the sale deed dated 27.07.2015, that the pathway in question had all along been a public pathway. The sale deed explicitly mentioned the public pathway leading to the Forest Office and Government Hospital as the western boundary of the property. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's claim to exclusively possess and control this pathway, to the exclusion of public access, was not sustainable. The reasoning was that the established public use and the description in the sale deed demonstrated the pathway's character as a public access, overriding the petitioner's claim based solely on patta status without considering the public interest and established usage. The ratio decidendi is that a patta land, if it has been consistently used as a public pathway and its character as such is evidenced by documents and usage, cannot be claimed by the patta holder to obstruct public access, especially when it serves essential public facilities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, specifically the fourth respondent (Forest Range Officer), from interfering with the petitioner's patta land in Survey No. 409/18B, Thiruvattar Village, Kalkulam Taluk, without acquisition proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A. He asserted that as long as the survey number is recorded as patta land, the authorities cannot claim any right over it and must initiate acquisition proceedings if they intend to use it. He relied on the principle that private property cannot be encroached upon without due process. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petition-mentioned survey number includes a pathway that serves as the only access to the Forest Range Office and the Taluk Hospital. They argued that the public has been using this pathway all along, and accepting the petitioner's request would result in public interest suffering. They relied on the contents of their counter affidavit and the sale deed which indicated the existence and use of the pathway as a public access.