Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89835 (MAD)

J.SETHURAMAN v. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

WP/39054/2025 · 2025-10-17

V Lakshminarayanan

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP No. 39054 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-10-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WP No. 39054 of 2025 J.Sethuraman S/o. J.Jayachandran, No. 232/A, 5th Main Road, Sadhasivam Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Central Chennai. 2. The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk , Ambattur, Chennai. 3. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai. 4. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai. 5. Arumugasamy, S/o. Natarajan, No.33, C-47, 2nd Avenue, Annanagar Plaza, 1st Floor, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40. 6. Soundarrajan, S/o. Santhosh, 1550, 18th Main Road, Thiruvalluvar Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 39054 of 2025 7. M/s. Jain Housing LLP, Rep. by its Director No. 98, Habibullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 17. ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 4/07/2025 and to take necessary steps to facilitate the allocation of pathway to his land through the appropriate land. For Petitioner: Mr. A.Suresh For Respondents: Mr. M.Shajahan, SGP for R1 & R2 Mr.V.Sudalai Selvan for R3 Mr. D.B.R.Prabhu, Standing Counsel for R4 ORDER The relief sought by the petitioner is to be appropriately addressed before the jurisdictional Civil Court, with or without the relief of declaration of easementary right. The Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to direct respondents 5 to 7 to set out a portion of their land and create a pathway. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 39054 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that for over fifty years, the petitioner before me, and his parents have been using the adjacent property as an access. In such an event, the appropriate remedy is to move only the Civil Court. This requires oral and documentary evidence. I am afraid I cannot look into this matter while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 17-10-2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Kj To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Central Chennai. 2.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk , Ambattur, Chennai. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 39054 of 2025 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. kj 3.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai. 4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai. WP No. 39054 of 2025 17-10-2025 __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis