relief sought for in respect of the property has been classified as Boosthathi Tar Salai as per records?
(b) Whether the Courts below were correct ... when both the properties have been classified as Boosthathi Tar Salai?
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Courts below without
respondents, is a patta land. Though it was classified as boosthathi
pathway, without acquiring the said land, the respondents cannot lay the
road. Therefore ... which held that mere entries in revenue records as boosthathi thar
road do not confer any title unless the private parties to whom the land
that the aforesaid lands
belonged to him and was used as a Boosthathi road and does not
vest with the Government. It is the case ... petitioner that the
third respondent laid a thar road in the Boosthathi road belonging to
the petitioner. But they did not pay any compensation
others, (2015) 4 CTC 25, (supra) also the municipality claimed right over Boosthathi Tar Road. This Court has held that the plaintiffs have not produced
stated in Ex.A.9 that T.S.No.2/2 is Boosthathi Tar Road, it
cannot be presumed that it is a road belonging
well as the first Appellate Court dealt
with the phrase "Boosthathi" refers to patta land
belonging to private individuals and the same
shows that the suit 2nd schedule property has been
described as “Boosthathi Sanjeevinathapuram North Street”. The word
“Boosthathi” refers to Patta land belonging to private
revenue record state that T.S.No.2/12 it is a Boosthathi Tar Road, it will not be adequate to divest the petitioners
shows that the suit 2nd schedule property has
been described as "Boosthathi Sanjeevinathapuram North
Street". The word "Boosthathi" refers to Patta
7024 for TSLR
No.11/1 classifying the same as "Boosthathi Pathai". Thereafter, the fourth
respondent committed criminal trespass into the petitioner
