Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from an eviction notice dated 27.1.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, under proceedings Na.Ka.No.A6/4978/2024, directing removal of alleged encroachment by the petitioner on government poramboke cart track in S.No.548/11, measuring 0.18.00 sq.mtr at Navanikkalam Village, Nerkuppai Town Panchayat, Sivagangai District. The petitioner, Muthu, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the eviction order and to restrain the respondents from evicting him from Door No.9-2-24 without following due process of law. The respondents included the District Collector, District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Executive Officer of Nerkuppai Town Panchayat, and Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner contended that the survey number had been improperly classified as a cart track and that the government had already laid roads in different survey numbers, suggesting a faulty survey. He claimed that he had put up an asbestos construction and that the authorities were attempting to remove it based on improper surveying. He further submitted that he had made a representation dated 3.4.2025 to the Tahsildar requesting recall of the notice and grant of house site patta. The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, asserted that the 'A' Register clearly showed S.No.548/11 as a cart track and that the petitioner had encroached upon it by raising semi-permanent construction. They submitted that if the petitioner was interested in house site patta, it would be considered independently, but he could not be permitted to continue occupation on a cart track. The court considered whether the petitioner had any legal right to occupy the government poramboke cart track. It noted that the petitioner was seeking protection for what the court characterized as illegal encroachment. The court held that the writ petitioner cannot have a right to occupy the cart track. At the same time, the court recognized that if the petitioner was otherwise eligible for house site patta, his request should be considered by the government in accordance with law. Accordingly, the court directed that the representation dated 3.4.2025 for issuance of house site patta be considered as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - No Legal Right to Occupy Government Cart Track - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner challenged an eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar for alleged encroachment on S.No.548/11, a government poramboke cart track - Court held that the writ petitioner cannot have a right to occupy a cart track and dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the eviction while leaving open independent consideration of house site patta - Held that a person cannot claim legal protection for encroachment on public land (Paras 5-6). B) Administrative Law - Consideration of Representation - House Site Patta Eligibility - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner made a representation dated 3.4.2025 to the Tahsildar requesting recall of the eviction notice and grant of patta - Court directed the government to consider the request for house site patta in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order copy, independently of the encroachment removal - Held that the authority must assess patta eligibility without allowing continuation of occupation on cart track (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitioner has a legal right to occupy a government poramboke cart track and resist eviction, and whether his request for house site patta should be considered despite the encroachment
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The court directed that the petitioner's request for house site patta, as made in representation dated 3.4.2025, be considered by the government in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Law Points
- No person has a right to occupy a government poramboke cart track
- encroachment on public land cannot be protected by writ court
- house site patta request must be considered independently in accordance with law
- Article 226 Constitution of India
