Allowed

V. Mangala Gounder v. Teh District Collector

Madras HC21 Nov 2013WP(MD)/18613/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court considered a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the District Collector to sanction a bridge constructed by the petitioner. The bridge was built by the petitioner at his own cost to ensure road access to his land after a government road excavation blocked the path. The Court directed the authorities to grant permission for the bridge.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the first respondent, the District Collector, to take steps to grant permission for the constructed bridge used by the public and the petitioner.

V. Mangala Gounder Vs Teh District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18613 of 2013

¶7

V.Mangala Gounder ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District. ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to accord sanction to the construction of the bridge by the petitioner in Survey No.274 in Kanakkanpatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District to have access to the petitioner's land from the road in considering the petitioner's representation, dated 29.04.2013.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.M.Govindan

¶16

Special Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent/the District Collector to accord proper sanction to the construction of the bridge put up by the petitioner in Survey No.274 at Kanakkanpatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District to have access to the petitioner's land from the road on the basis of the reasoning given by the petitioner in his representation, dated 29.04.2013.

¶19

Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶20

It is the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims to be the resident of Kanakkanpatti Village owns land with his brothers in Survey Nos.275, 276, 277 and 278 measuring about 10.80 acres, which is also connected to a road poramboke in Survey No.274. But the Government has laid a road in the said Survey No.274 by excavating sand from one side of the road. As a result, 10 feet of the said pathai poramboke comes into a channel. In view of the above, the petitioner's land from the said road is completely cut off. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ built a bridge with a concrete, leaving a sufficient space for water to pass away. Therefore, the only apprehension of the petitioner is that although the bridge has been put up by the petitioner at his own cost for

¶21

¶22

his use, general public are also using this bridge, as this is the only way to reach their areas, but Survey No.274 is still classified as pathai poramboke. Therefore, proper permission should be granted for the said bridge to exist for use of all persons, otherwise, the construction in the bridge made by the petitioner would be questioned by any one in future. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation before all the respondents, more particularly, the first respondent but till date no progress has been shown by the respondents. As a result, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition.

¶23

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court a communication, dated 27.05.2013 issued by the District Collector through the Thasildar, Palani asking to submit a report on the issue. It is fairly submitted before this Court that the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the construction of the common bridge would be properly safe guarded. He has also stated that as necessary order is awaiting from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner's representation is likely to be answered in his favour.

¶24

Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court directs the first respondent to take appropriate steps to grant sufficient permission for having constructed the common bridge, as it is being used by all the public and the petitioner to reach their destination.

¶25

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶26

costs.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(crl.side) /True copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶29

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶30

2.The District Revenue Officer,

¶31

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶32

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶33

4.The Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶34

+1CC to M/s.G.Prabu Rajadurai, Advocate in SR.No.57286

¶35

W.P(MD)No.18613 of 2013

21.11.2013

PBK 19/12/2013 2P/6C

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

V. Mangala Gounder v. Teh District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Mangala Gounder v. Teh 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

P.Mehalingam Vs the District Collector

V.Sreenivasan Vs the Joint Registrar

V. Kannuchamy, Vs the District Collector

V.Periyasamy S/O.Vellayappa Pi Vs the District Registrar

P.Subramanian, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sanku Sabapathi, Vs the District Collector