Allowed

K.Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Nov 2011WP/1115/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Railway Administration's refusal to provide access to his lands separated by a railway line under Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held the Administration liable to construct a ramp at its own cost.

What did the court decide?

A direction is issued to the third respondent to provide a connecting ramp between the railway over-bridge and the petitioner's lands at Survey No.294/4A1 within six months at the Railway Administrati

K.Selvaraj Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.11.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARI PARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.1115 of 2011

¶6

K.Selvaraj ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Salem – Karur Borad Gauge Railway Line Project,
C.K.P. Plaza,
Paramathy Road,
Namakkal Town.
3. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions),
Salem-Karur Borad Gauge Railway Line Project,
Salem Junction,
Suramangalam,
Salem.
4. The President,
Chinnapethampatti Village Panchayat,
Mohanur Union, Namakkal Taluk,
Namakkal District – 637 017. ... Respondents
(R4 impleaded as per order dt.23.9.2011
by DHPJ in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in
W.P.No.1115 of 2011)

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus as stated therein.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.M.C.Swamy, Spl.GP for R1, R2 & R4 Mr.Vellaisamy for R3

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide a service road in the northern side of the fly-over connecting Anniyapuram Kulathupalayam Villages to reach his lands in Survey No.294/4A1 of Anniyapuram Village, Kulathupalayam Post, Namakkal Taluk and District, based on his representation dated 06.12.2010.

¶14

The petitioner owns lands in Survey Nos.293/2, 294/2 and 294/3 at Anniyapuram Village, Namakkal Taluk. The second respondent acquired a portion of the lands of the petitioner in all the above survey nos. for the purpose of formation of Salem-Karur Broad Gauge Railway Line. The acquisition took place during 1999, and the petitioner did not oppose the acquisition. Subsequently, an award was passed on 31.12.1999, in respect of the acquired lands of the petitioner. The third respondent has put up broad gauge railway line passing through the acquired lands and it is yet to be operational.

¶15

The remaining lands of the petitioner are situated on the both sides of the railway lines. Before formation of the railway lines, the lands of the petitioner were abutting the panchayat road from Aniyapuram to Kulathupalayam.

¶16

After the railway lines were formed, the petitioner has access to his lands on the one side of the railway line, but no access to his lands on the other side of the railway line. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.12.2010, to form service road in the northern side of the fly-over connecting AnniyapuramKulathupalayam Villages to reach his lands in Survey No.294/4A1. However, there was no response from the respondents. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Railway Administration is bound to provide service road as per Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1989. According to him, though he prayed for service road, he is satisfied if a ramp is constructed by the Railway Administration connecting railway over bridge and his lands at Survey No.294/4A1. It is submitted that there is a mandatory under Section 16 of the Act to provide such a facility at the cost of the Railway Administration. It is also submitted that the land owners could ask for such a facility upto 10 years from the date on which the ralway lines were operational. In this case, the railway lines are yet to be operational, hence, the writ petition is in time.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 submitted that it is for the Railway Administration to provide service road or any other necessary facility to the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the Railway Administration has no objection for the petitioner to put up a ramp on his own cost.

¶22

The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Railway Administration is bound to provide a ramp at the cost of the Railway Administration to the petitioner.

¶23

The second respondent acquired the lands of the petitioner in Anniyapuram Village, Namakkal Taluk. The acquisition was made for the purpose of formation of Salem-Karur Broad Gauge Railway Line. The petitioner did not object the acquisition. After acquisition, railway lines were formed. Now, the railway line runs dividing his lands. He has access to one part of the lands by using road. As far as the other part of the lands are concerned, he cannot reach the lands, since the railway over bridge is now constructed at that side.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner now that the Railway Administration should provide ramp to reach his lands from the railway over bridge. In support of his submission, he relied on Section 16 of the Railways Act. Section 16(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

¶25

"(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the works specified in sub section (1) shall be made at the cost of the railway administration during or immediately after the laying out or formation of the railway over the lands traversed and in such a manner as to cause as little damage or inconvenience as possible to persons interested in the lands or affected by the works:

¶26

Provided that---

¶27

(a) a railway administration shall not be required to make any accommodation works in such a manner as would prevent or obstruct the working or using of the railway, or to make any accommodation works with respect to which the owners or occupiers of the lands have been paid compensation in consideration of their not requiring the said works to be made;

¶28

(b) save as hereinafter, in this Chapter, provided, no railway administration shall be liable to execute any further or additional accommodation works for the use of the owners or occupiers of the lands after the expiration

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

of ten years from the date on which the railways passing through the lands was first opened for public traffic;

¶31

(c) where a railway administration has provided suitable accommodation work for the crossing of a road or stream and the road or stream is afterwards diverted by the act or neglect of the person having the control thereof, the railway administration shall not be compelled to provide any other accommodation work for the crossing of such road or stream."

¶32

On the other hand, the third respondent issued a letter dated 28.04.2011, permitting the petitioner to construct the ramp at his cost. The said letter is extracted hereunder:-

¶33

SOUTHERN RAILWAY No.W271/CN/SA-KRR/NKL Dist Office of the Dy.CE/CN/SA Date: 28.04.2011

¶34

ALO/CN/MS Sub: Submission of reply to writ petition No.1115 of 2011 before Hon'ble High Court of Madras – K.Selvaraj Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal and two others – Reg. Ref: ALO/CN/MS letter No.P.363/CN/I/MS/Law/HC-793 dated 07.04.2011.

¶35

¶36

With reference to the above letter, the petitioners land was inspected and found that his land had been divided into two portions on account of the New Railway line. A Road Over Bridge (ROB) has been constructed to maintain the existing path connecting Namakkal – Mohanur highway road with Kulathupalayam and other villages. One portion of the land lies on Kulathupalayam village side for which no path problem and other portion of the land is on Namakkal-Mohanur highway side for which direct access is not available now. The petitioner's portion of the land starts from the ROB within 3 mts width approximately for a length of around 100 mts and thereafter additional land of the petitioner is available. (Please refer the enclosed sketch) Land acquisition is now warranted for forming service road on account of existing topography, because the railway line crosses at about 15 feet depth at this location. The petitioner has also not asked the pathway at the time of constructing the bridge (ROB) which is 8 years old now. However the only possible solution now is the petitioner can form the earthen ramp from the Road Over Bridge (ROB)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

portion which is about 2m height at this location and enter directly in his own land. This is for kind information and necessary further action please. Encl: One sketch as mentioned above. Copy to: DRO/Namakkal for kind information."

¶39

In my view, the third respondent is not correct in stating that the petitioner should construct a ramp at his own cost and the same is contrary to and in violation of Section 16(2) of the Railways Act. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has approached the Court in time. Section 16(2)(b) of the Act states that the concerned person could approach for such facility, such as ramp, before expiry of 10 years, from the date on which the railway passing through the lands was first opened for public traffic. In this case, the railway line is yet to be operational. Hence, the third respondent is bound to provide the ramp at the cost of the Railways.

¶40

In these circumstances, the third respondent is directed to provide a ramp connecting the railway over-bridge and the petitioner's lands at Survey No.294/4A1, in Anniyapuram Village, Kulathupalayam Post, Namakkal District, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No Costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rkm To

¶42

The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Salem – Karur Borad Gauge Railway Line Project, C.K.P. Plaza, Paramathy Road, Namakkal Town.

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions), Salem-Karur Borad Gauge Railway Line Project, Salem Junction, Suramangalam, Salem.

¶45

The President, Chinnapethampatti Village Panchayat, Mohanur Union, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 017. 1 CC to Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.69371 1 CC to Mr.M.Vellaisamy, Advocate, SR.69853 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.69579 W.P.No.1115 of 2011

¶46

EV(CO) SRA(7/11/2011)

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Raman Vs Govt of Tamilnadu

P.Srinivasan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Umamaheshwari W/O.S.Dhanapal Vs Jt Director of Medical

P.Subbaiyan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K. Thangaraju Vs the Secretary Tamilnadu

Thiru.K.Srinivasan Vs the Secretary Regional