1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD).No.10751 of 2011 and M.P(MD).NO.1 OF 2011 J.Janakiammal ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Trichy. 2.The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (Cause title regarding R1 amended vide order dated 1.12.2011 in MP.No.2 of 2011) ...Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to facilitate removing the metal barricade in front of patta land of the petitioner comprised in S.No.39/1B2A, Ulaganeri Village, Madurai forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondent-1 : Mr.C.Arulvadivel (a) Sekar For Respondent-2 : Mr.D.Venkatesh ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the metal barricade in front of the patta land of the petitioner in S.No.39/1B2A, Ulaganeri Village, Madurai. 2. Heard Mr.F.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C. Arulvadivel (a) Sekar, learned counsel for the first respondent. The Registrar of this Court, who is the second respondent herein, was also put on notice. 3. The petitioner is the owner of a vacant land of an extent of about 71 cents in S.No.39/1B2A, Ulaganeri Village, Madurai District. This land was part of a larger extent of about 1.99 acres in S.No.39/1B. A major portion of the said land measuring about Acres 1.12 was acquired for the purpose of locating the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. 16 cents were acquired by the first respondent for providing a service road on the rear side of the High Court campus to reach the National Highways. 4. After acquisition, the petitioner is now left with a piece of land, which is actually 'L' shaped. The land has a frontage of 26 meters, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 But, the Highways had erected a barricade at the instance of the High Court sealing the entire frontage. Consequently, the petitioner cannot now reach her own land, except by helicopter. Therefore, she prays for opening the barricade put up at the instance of this Court, to enable her to reach and use her remaining land. 5. By an order dated 1.12.2011, I directed the petitioner and the officials of the first respondent to have a joint inspection of the property along with the Registrar (Administration). They conducted an inspection on 2.12.2011 and the Registrar (Administration) has filed a report. Apart from the counsel for the petitioner, the officials of the National Highways Department and the Registrar, the revenue officials were also present during inspection. 6. After the inspection, the Registrar (Administration) filed a detailed report, but termed it as an interim report. Since the said report raises certain fundamental issues, the report requires reproduction. Hence, it is reproduced as follows : "....It was noticed that a considerable extent of space is in the possession of the National Highways Department, adjacent to the present service road i.e, beyond the barricade and the petitioner's land is situate after this land. The measurements were not readily available. The National Highways Authorities and Revenue Officials, who were present, were requested to furnish reports along with the line sketch of the said area, indicating the possibility for a common road beyond the barricade for use of the petitioner and other adjacent land owners. Accordingly, the Village Administrative Officer, North Taluk, Madurai, has furnished his report dated 13.12.2011. He has stated that in the year 2002-03, land was acquired from patta land owners for forming six way National Highway track (Trichy to Madurai) and subsequently four way track was laid. Thus, about 3 meters of land on either side of the Highways Road belong to the National Highways Department and the same is still available. He has stated that if the National Highways Department permits the said 3 meters width land adjacent to the barricade (74 meters) is vacant throughout National Highway 7 and this may be considered for formation of road for use of patta land owners like the petitioner, without harm to the existing 74 meters barricade used by the Hon'ble Judges. The letter and the line sketch of the said area furnished by the Village Administrative Officer are submitted at Flat 'A'. On going through the file, it is seen that when National Highway 7 was formed, the National Highway Authority of India acquired the High Court land measuring 1100 sq.m in the south east corner of the premises of the Madurai Bench for provision of median opening along with service road provision and barricade on either side was put up by the National Highways Authority of India for the safety and security of the Hon'ble Judges. The Hon'ble Building Committee, High Court, Madras, had considered the request of the petitioner for opening of the barricade for about 20 feet and had ultimately rejected the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 same. It is submitted that if the pathway, as suggested by the petitioner is now granted straightaway, there is possibility of adjacent patta land owners also coming up with similar claims, resulting in the 74 meters barricade on the right side of the High Court gate being fully removed. The barricade on the left side of the High Court gate is safe and in the layout adjacent to this barricade, a road has been formed to enter the main National Highways. The report of the National Highways Authority of India is yet to be received. This interim report is submitted before the Hon'ble Court on the materials now available and a detailed report will be submitted as soon as the report is received from the National Highways Authority of India." 7. After the Registrar filed the above interim report, reserving his right to file a final report after NHAI filed its report, I called upon the Standing Counsel for NHAI to file their report if any. But, the learned Standing Counsel for NHAI submitted on instructions that the sketch filed by them may be taken note of and that they would abide by any decision of this Court. In other words, NHAI were not anxious to file any report. 8. After NHAI made it clear that they were not filing any separate report, the Registrar filed another report on 21.12.2011. The report reads as follows : "The National Highways Authorities of India has furnished a sketch marked 'A' with regard to the barricade portion and no report has been filed. On a perusal of sketch, it is seen that considerable space between the petitioner's land and the barricade gate is available and the same belongs to the National Highways Authorities of India, which has categorically assured that if the petitioner approaches them for provision of road, they will consider the same. Without causing any damage to the barricade, the petitioner can enter the main road using the space available between his land and the barricade after formation of necessary road." 9. Therefore, it is clear that what stands between the petitioner and her land today is neither the State Government nor the National Highways Authority of India, but the Registrar of this Court and that too on the basis of a report of the Building Committee. But the objection of the Registrar is not legally well founded. The petitioner has already submitted herself to acquisition proceedings, first at the instance of the State Government for the purpose of formation of this Court and next at the instance of the National Highways Authority of India for the expansion of the four lane highway. The provision for the petitioner to have access to the unacquired portion of her land, should have been made by the NHAI voluntarily. Neither the State Government nor NHAI nor even this Court has any right to prevent the petitioner from having uninterrupted and free access to the portion of the land which is left unacquired. Putting up a barricade in front of the land unacquired and refusing to provide access to the petitioner, is actually an infringement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 of the property right of the petitioner, which is held to be both a Constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right. 10. If any further portion of the land, belonging to the petitioner is required by this Court, for the purpose of putting up a barricade on the service road leading to the Highways, the only option open to this Court, is to initiate appropriate steps for acquisition. I do not think that a Constitutional Court will be justified in wielding its power to prevent the owners of neighbouring lands from enjoying their properties, with all rights and privileges that go along with a property including the easementary rights of necessity. To do so by administrative action, is still worse. When this Court, even by a judicial order, cannot restrain the owners of adjoining lands, from having access to the lands lawfully owned by them, I do not know how this Court can do it on the administrative side. 11. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent herein to remove the barricade to the extent of not less than 30 feet, at a location convenient to the petitioner, to enable her to have free and uninterrupted access to her land directly from the Highways. Since the barricade starts from the place where the compound wall of the High Court is located and goes upto a particular distance, blocking the entire frontage of the petitioner's land, it is open to the first respondent to open the barricade on the other extreme from where the compound wall of the High Court is located. The first respondent is directed to carry out the task and do the needful and open up the barricade to the extent indicated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Trichy. 2.The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to M/s.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No.45834 MPK/RS GH : 05.01.2012 : 4p/4c WP(MD)NO.10751/2011 23.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/