1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.5895 of 2011 R.Shanmugam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Cutchery Road, Thanjavur. 2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Karaikal Road, Kumbakonam. 3.The Executive Officer, Thiru Nageswaram Town Panchayat, Karaikal Main Road, Thiru Nageswaram Post, Kumbakonam Taluk. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the third respondent from laying road in the petitioner's property situated in No.30, Sanapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District without adhering due process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Geetha For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam, Additional Government Pleader. For 3rd Respondent : Mr.D.Devaraj O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to forbear the third respondent from laying road in the petitioner's property situated in No.30, Sanapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District without due process of law. 2.According to the petitioner, the property was inherited by him from his father Renganathan and according to him, the petitioner's father purchased the property even as early as on 21.04.1943 as per a registered document in No.914/1943 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The first respondent at the behest of the second respondent has given a contract to lay a road adjacent to his property. As per the contract, the third respondent is now trying to encroach upon the property and taking steps to lay the road cutting across his property. The Tahsildar, Village Administrative Officer had visited his property and were taken measurements. According to him, he has also made an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 objection even to measure his property without any intimation. Then, he was told that there is a proposal to form a new road on his property and they are attempting to remove the tree standing there. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice on 30.12.2010 to the respondents and thereafter, there was no further action. According to him, the road proposed to be constructed by the respondents does not link with any other public road and till date he was not issued with any notice or public intimation regarding the same and no acquisition proceedings have been commenced in respect of his property. Inspite of his assurance, the third respondent is threatening to commence the work and he met the respondents and asked them to stop the work but they were not doing so. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.The third respondent filed counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition contending that the property in question is not at all owned by the petitioner, according to him, it is a Government poramboke land and whereas the petitioner's property as per the document No.914/1943 granted to him stands in R.S.No.123/2. Therefore, it would clearly indicate that the property which is now owned by him which is situated in R.S.No.123/2 and when R.S.No.123/1 as per the revenue records is only the Government poramboke land necessarily, there is no necessity for the respondents to issue any notice either under Land Acquisition Act or under the District Municipalities Act. It is further submitted that they have completed the process of laying road for a length of 142 metres and only because of the interim order granted by this Court, the respondents could not proceed further. 4.Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that as per the revenue records produced it is only Government poramboke land and hence, the petitioner would not have any legal right to challenge the laying of road. 5.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 6.The short point arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether the petitioner has got any legal right to stop the process of laying of the road by the third respondent. The only ground which has been made out by the petitioner even way back in the year 1943 the property was purchased in document No.914/1943, dated 21.04.1943. Even the document which is produced in the typed set of papers by the petitioner himself it is stated that the property owned by him is in R.S.No.123/2. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the third respondent when he is able to establish that even as per the revenue records, the property in question in R.S.No.123/1 is a Government poramboke land, the question of third respondent seeking any permission in respect of the laying of the road, does not arise. Therefore, the very ownership of the property is established by the third respondent and according to the third respondent, patta for 31 persons were issued to reach their land in respect of the same survey number. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case including the establishment of his right of title or seeking for any notice. Therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar sms To 1.The District Collector, Cutchery Road, Thanjavur. 2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Karaikal Road, Kumbakonam. 3.The Executive Officer, Thiru Nageswaram Town Panchayat, Karaikal Main Road, Thiru Nageswaram Post, Kumbakonam Taluk. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.21637 +1cc to Mr.D.Rajendran, Advocate, SR.NO.21243 GH : 26.07.2011 : 3p/6c Writ Petition (MD)No.5895 of 2011 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/