1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.190 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.Lakshmanan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai. 2.The Thasildar, Thirupathur Taluk, Thirupathur,Sivagangai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Nachiapuram Post,Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 4.The Panchayat President, N.Keelayur Panchayat,Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from putting up any compound wall in S.No.30/9 blocking the pathway leading to the petitioner land in S.No.30/8 at Mela Avanthipatty, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District till disposal of the Civil suit in O.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur. For Petitioner :Mr.N.Sundareshan For R4 :Mr.B.K.Rajendran ORDER The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from putting up compound wall in Survey No.30/9 blocking the pathway leading to his land in Survey No.30/8 situated at Mela Avanthipatty, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property in Survey No.30/8 comprising of 16 cents at Mela Avanthipatty, Thirupathur Taluk in the District of Sivagangai. On the western side from Mela Avanthipatty Road, there is a pathway through the properties in Survey Nos.30/2, 30/1, 30/9 to reach his land. The adjacent property in Survey No.30/9 is the Government poramboke land. There is no pathway to the land of the petitioner, except the one starts from Mela Avanthipatty Road. The said pathway has been existing from time immemorial. Since three of the villagers made an attempt to block the pathway, he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur, praying for a decree of declaration pertaining to his easementary right. In the said suit, the defendants have filed their written statements confirming the fact that the property in Survey No.30/9 belonged to the Government They have also admitted that the Panchayat President has taken steps to block the pathway by putting up fence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It was the further contention of the petitioner that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in his suit in O.S.No.21 of 2007 and in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it was stated that the pathway is only through the property in Survey No.30/9. Immediately, the petitioner has filed an application to implead the District Collector, Sivagangai and the Tahsildar Thiruppathur as parties to the suit. The fourth respondent in the meantime has removed the fence and attempted to construct a compound wall so as to block the pathway. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ petition. 4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition According to the fourth respondent, there was no assignment in favour of the petitioner. He was originally working as a 'Village Karnam' and he has made fraudulent entries in the Adangal and his claim is only on the basis of the forged records. It was further contended that they are in the process of constructing a compound wall by using the funds provided by the Government. 5. According to the fourth respondent, the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2007 was a collusive suit and the same is evident from the written statements filed by the defendants in the said suit, confirming the right claimed by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner seeks a prohibitory order against the respondents as according to him in case compound wall is constructed in the property in Survey No.30/9, it would not be possible for him to enter his property in Survey No.30/8 at Mela Avanthipatty. The petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 2007. According to him, he has already taken steps to implead the respondents 1 & 2. Therefore, nothing prevented the petitioner from agitating the matter before the Civil Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to conduct two parallel proceedings in respect of the very same cause of action. 7. In the said circumstances, the prayer as made in the Writ petition cannot be granted. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievances. 8. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ petition. No costs Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai. 2.The Thasildar, Thirupathur Taluk,Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. 3.The Inspector of Police,Nachiapuram Post,Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai Dt 4.The Panchayat President,N.Keelayur Panchayat,Thirupathur Taluk,Sivagangai. +1cc to Mr.N.Sundareshan, Advocate SR.No.4564 +1c to Mr.B.K.Rajendran, Advocate SR.No.4555 W.P.(MD)No.190 of 2011 07.02.2011 pm PA/18.02.2011/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/