(Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records in Na.Ka.No. /A3/2752/2023 on the file of the 1st Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents 1-3 to remove construction made in T.S.No. 1041 and 1004, Block No. 12, T.S.Ward. BJ, Palayamkottai village No.II, Palayamkottai Taluk, within time frame.)

M. Dhandapani J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order in Na.Ka.No./A3/2752/2023, passed by the first respondent herein and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the construction made in T.S.Nos.1041 and 1004, Block No.12, T.S.Ward-BJ, Palayamkottai Village No.II, Palayamkottai Taluk, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is residing in Block No.12, wherein a road is available in T.S.No.1041. The said road has been encroached upon by the deceased fourth respondent, namely, Ramaswamy. For removal of the said encroachment, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.15204 of 2022 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 18.07.2022, issued a direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said direction, the Tahsildar considered the issue and passed an order for removal of the encroachment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.25700 of 2020. Two other persons also filed W.P.(MD).Nos.3352 and 3353 of 2023, wherein liberty was granted to the petitioners therein, namely, Ramaswamy and Subramanian, to file an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar before the District Collector under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act. Accordingly, they preferred an appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector, by the impugned order dated 11.07.2023, closed the issue on the ground that there was an error in the UDR updating, whereby the property was wrongly classified, and also on the ground that a suit in O.S.No.292 of 2022 was pending between the parties.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, admittedly, during the UDR updating, T.S.No.1041 has been classified as a pathway/Thar Road. Therefore, no individual can claim any right to encroach upon the road portion. Instead of confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar for removal of the encroachment, the District Collector has passed the impugned order closing the issue, which is impermissible. Hence, he would pray for appropriate orders.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that the deceased fourth respondent, Ramaswamy, had filed O.S.No.292 of 2022 challenging the alleged improper updating of the UDR entry. However, the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the fourth respondent died during the pendency of the suit and no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record. It is submitted that the legal representatives have now taken effective steps for bringing themselves on record and for restoration of the suit. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the subsequent enquiry, the Revenue officials as well as the Corporation authorities have arrived at a conclusion that there was an erroneous entry made during the UDR updating. It is also submitted that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said UDR entry before the District Revenue Officer in terms of G.O. (Ms).No.385, dated 17.08.2024 governing UDR updation and correction.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order passed by the District Collector, closing the proceedings on the ground of an alleged error in UDR updation and pendency/restoration of the civil proceedings, can be sustained.

8. It is not in dispute that T.S.No.1041 is recorded as a pathway/road in the revenue records. At the same time, the respondents have taken a specific stand that the said entry itself is alleged to have been made erroneously during the UDR updation and that the issue relating to the correctness of the revenue entry is capable of being agitated before the competent Revenue authority.

9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute relating to the correctness of the UDR entry cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ proceedings, particularly when the parties are also stated to have approached the Civil Court in respect of the subject property.

10. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the private respondents/legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent to approach the competent District Revenue Officer for appropriate correction/rectification of the UDR entry, in the manner known to law. If any such proceedings are initiated, the competent authority shall consider the same independently and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party with regard to the title or classification of the subject property. The competent Revenue authority shall consider the issue strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the records available.

12. In view of the above, the relief sought for by the petitioner for removal of the alleged encroachment cannot be granted at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court, in which proceedings the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate, subject to his rights in law.

12. With the above observations and liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.