1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:08.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN WP(MD)No.1111 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Ganesan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palanai, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District. 4.The Executive Officer,Ayakudi Town Panchayat,Palani Taluk,Dindigul Dt. 5.P.Paramasivam 6.K.Kannaiyan :Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to prevent the respondents 5 & 6 from encroaching by making any construction in the easter side pathway of the petitioner's house at Survey No.174/1, Ward No.13, East Majanakkara Street, West Ayakudi Village, Ayakudi Town Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District and thereby secure pathway and easy access to the petitioner's house to the main road. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ramu For respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Government Advocate ORDER The action taken by the respondents 5 & 6 to construct a compound wall covering the pathway of the petitioner's property in Survey No.174/1, at East Manjakkarar Street, in West Ayakudi Village, in Palani Taluk made the petitioner to file this writ petition. THE FACTS: 2.The petitioner is stated to be residing in Survey No.174/1 in West Ayakudi Village. He appears to have obtained a building plan approval from the fourth respondent for the purpose of putting up a residential house Accordingly, he has constructed a residential house. In the meantime, the respondents 5 & 6 who are none other than the President and Secretary of the nearby Mariamman Temple started to dig in front of the petitioner's house When the petitioner questioned them, they gave a reply that the property belongs to the temple and as such they would construct the compound wall preventing entry to the petitioner through the said property. Immediately the petitioner submitted a representation before the District Collector on 03.01.2011 and a copy of the said representation was sent to the respondents 2 to 4. However, there was no follow up action at their instance, which made the petitioner to file the writ petition. DISCUSSION: 3.The fourth respondent issued a building plan permit to the petitioner as per proceedings dated 10.05.2010. In the said building plan, there is an indication that the access to the petitioner's property was through the nearby pathway. The petitioner claims easementary right over the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 property. However, the respondents 5 & 6 appears to have made arrangements to construct a compound wall so as to prohibit the petitioner's entry through the said property. 4.It is true that the plea of easementary right is a matter to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. However, that will not preclude the authorities to consider the request of a citizen when he complains that the existing pathway is taken away and an attempt is made by the neighbouring owners to close the pathway. The respondents 5 & 6 had to take building permit from the fourth respondent for the purpose of construction of compound wall. These are all the matters to be considered by the third respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served in case a direction is issued to the third respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.01.2011. 5.Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.01.2011 with notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 & 6 on merits and as per law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent is directed to call upon the respondents 5 & 6 to produce their building plan and in case, no building plan was sanctioned to them, appropriate action should be taken by the fourth respondent to prevent the construction. In any case, the third respondent should see that the pathway is not blocked. 6.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palanai, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District. 4.The Executive Officer, Ayakudi Town Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.5218. Gcg W.P.(MD).No.1111 of 2011 RP/04.03.2011/2P/6C. 08.02.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/