High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain construction of a bridge by State Revenue officers denying ingress/egress through petitioner's land. Court recorded respondent's assurance that access would be from a different survey number and dismissed the apprehension.
No costs. Petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.04.2021 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.2416 of 2021
Surulisamy
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from construction over bridge in Kottakkudi River, in the manner having ingress and egress through petitioner's agricultural land comprised in Survey No.139, situated at Bodinayakkanoor Village, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.01.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For R-1, R-2 & R-4 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Additional Government Pleader For R-3 & R-5 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from constructing overbridge in Kottakkudi River, in such a manner that ingress and egress will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
2
be through the agricultural land of the petitioner, situated at Survey No.139, Bodinayakkanoor Village, Theni District.
2 . The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this case. It will be relevant to extract Paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit herein:-
“ 7. In fact the survey numbers situated at Anaikkaraipatti Village, Bodiyyakkanur Revenue Village S.Nos.161, 163, 164, 140 and 86 is the Cart Track to reach Melaparavu Village in between S.No.140 & 86, Kottakudi River runs in S.No.137 & 138. As per the revenue records entry, the Survey No.137 & 138 shows that it is a Kottakudi River and S.No.161,163, 164, 140 and 86 shows that Cart Track. The third respondent proposed to construct a bridge across the river in Survey No.138 and ingress from the S.No.140 and connected the S.No.86 i.e., Cart Track connecting the other side of the river. The construction of the bridge will be the benefit of the public and no way connected with the petitioner's property situated in S.No.139. The petitioner without knowing the proposal of the construction of the bridge filed this petition with an ulterior motive.”
3 . Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third and fifth respondents.
4 . It is clear from the counter affidavit that the apprehension raised by the petitioner has been sufficiently answered. It has been made clear that the ingress and egress for the construction of the bridge will be only from Survey No.149 and connected Survey No.86 and the respondents will not access through the property belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.139. This stand taken by the third respondent is recorded.
5 . This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AE)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
2/3
3
To
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
Order made in W.P.(MD).No.2416 of 2021 Dated: 17.04.2021
RS (04.05.2021) 3P 8C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's apprehension regarding ingress and egress through his agricultural land for bridge construction was justified?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surulisamy
The District Collector, Theni District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam
The Block Development Officer, Bodinayyakanoor Panchayat Union
The Tahsildar, Bodiyakkanoor Taluk
The President, Bodi-Anaikkaraipatti Panchayat
N.Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
