The Madurai High Court has affirmed that public access to pathways cannot be indefinitely suspended due to electoral constraints, directing immediate action to investigate and remove encroachment on a public route in Alampatti Village. The judgment reinforces the state’s non-delegable duty to protect public land and provides a clear timeline for enforcement despite political calendars.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nagendran, alleged that the 7th respondent, Shanmugathai, had illegally encroached upon a public pathway situated in Survey Number 46 of Alampatti Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. This pathway is a vital access route for residents and was being obstructed by unauthorized construction and fencing. The petitioner submitted a formal representation dated 05.12.2025 to the 4th respondent, the Tahsildar of Thirumangalam Taluk, seeking removal of the encroachment under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Code and relevant municipal and revenue laws.
Key Facts
The public pathway in S.No.46 is a recognized community access route, historically used by villagers for passage.
The 7th respondent allegedly constructed a boundary wall and gate across the pathway, restricting public movement.
The petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025 was received by the Tahsildar on 11.12.2025.
No action was taken by the revenue authorities for over three months.
The respondents claimed that the Election Code of Conduct, in force due to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, prevented survey and enforcement activities.
Procedural History
05.12.2025: Petitioner submits representation to the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) seeking removal of encroachment.
11.12.2025: Representation received by Tahsildar’s office.
19.04.2026: Respondents file affidavit in response, citing Election Code of Conduct as barrier to survey.
20.04.2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India heard by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the encroachment violates public rights under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Code and Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the Election Code does not override statutory duties of revenue officers to protect public land.
Respondents (1st to 4th): Contended that the Election Code of Conduct prohibits revenue officials from undertaking land surveys or enforcement actions during the election period, and that survey would be conducted post-election.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) to:
Conduct a survey of S.No.46 to ascertain encroachment;
Remove the illegal construction by the 7th respondent;
Complete the process within a time frame fixed by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Election Code of Conduct can legally justify inaction by revenue authorities in removing encroachments on public pathways, or whether the duty to protect public land under the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Code and constitutional obligations overrides such temporary restrictions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that public rights to access pathways are protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Code, which mandates revenue officers to preserve public land from unauthorized occupation. He cited State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Rajendran (2018) to argue that electoral constraints cannot be invoked to abdicate statutory duties. He emphasized that the delay since December 2025 was unreasonable and that the encroachment was a continuing violation.
For the Respondent
The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that Rule 12 of the Model Code of Conduct for General Elections prohibits government officials from initiating any land survey or enforcement action during the election period. They cited Office Order No. 813/2024/A4 dated 19.04.2026, wherein the Tahsildar had directed a survey for 25.03.2026, but it was deferred due to the Code. They requested time to act after the elections.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s right and the obligations of the Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue Code. It held that the protection of public pathways is not a discretionary function but a statutory duty. The Court observed that the Election Code of Conduct is a guideline for political conduct and does not override the legal obligations of revenue officers under land revenue statutes.
"The Model Code of Conduct, while binding on political parties and government machinery during elections, cannot be invoked to suspend the statutory duty of revenue officers to protect public land from encroachment. The right of the public to access a pathway is not a privilege contingent on electoral calendars."
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025 had remained unaddressed for over four months, and the mere assertion of election constraints without any concrete plan for post-election action was insufficient. The Court rejected the argument that surveying land constitutes an "official act" prohibited under the Code, distinguishing between political campaigning and administrative enforcement.
The Court emphasized that the Tahsildar, as the lowest revenue authority responsible for land records and encroachment control, has the primary duty to act. The Court also noted that the 7th respondent, as a private party, must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any removal, ensuring procedural fairness.
The Verdict
The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 4th respondent, the Tahsildar of Thirumangalam Taluk, shall conduct a survey of Survey Number 46, Alampatti Village, to ascertain whether encroachment by the 7th respondent exists. If encroachment is confirmed, it shall be removed by due process of law after affording opportunity to the 7th respondent and all other concerned parties. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Duty Overrides Electoral Constraints
Revenue officers cannot invoke the Election Code of Conduct to delay or avoid action on encroachments of public land.
Petitioners may now cite this judgment to compel action in cases where encroachment on roads, pathways, or common areas is ignored during election periods.
Procedural Safeguards Remain Non-Negotiable
Even when removal is ordered, due process must be followed: notice, hearing, and opportunity to contest must be granted to the alleged encroacher.
Failure to afford such opportunity may render removal illegal, even if encroachment is proven.
Three-Month Deadline Sets Precedent for Timeliness
Courts will now expect administrative action on public land grievances to be completed within a fixed, reasonable timeframe.
Practitioners should cite this judgment when seeking mandamus in delayed revenue matters, especially where public access is affected.
