Dismissed

K.S.Mohan v. The Director

Madras HC29 Sept 2022WP/26133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition seeking a mandate directing respondents to create a pathway on their land for ingress and egress to the petitioner's properties. The court dismissed the petition, holding that such claims involve easementary rights which must be proved in a competent Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his rights.

K.S.Mohan Vs The Director — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.26133 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.09.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.26133 of 2022 and W.P.No.25212 of 2022

K.S.Mohan

…. Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Director Department of Agriculture Marketing and Agri Business, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶11

2.The District Collector

¶12

Office of the District Collector Collectorate, Thiruvallur.

¶13

3.The Deputy Director of Agriculture Agri Business, Department of Agriculture and Agri Business, Thiruvallur.

¶14

4.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶15

…. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide passage / pathway on the construction of Cold Storage and Drying yards in the land comprised in Survey No.160 situated at Kuthambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District for ingress and egress for tractors and

¶17

other modern machinery into the petitioner's lands comprised in Survey Nos.94/2, 153/2B, 156/1, 172/38, 172/54C3, 148/1A, and 172/4A situated at

¶18

1 / 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.26133 of 2022

¶21

Kuthambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2021 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ragavendran

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.E.Sundaram Government Advocate – for RR 1, 3 & 4

¶24

Mr.R.Kumaravel, Additional Government Pleader – for R2

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide passage / pathway on the construction of Cold Storage and Drying yards in the land comprised in Survey No.160 situated at Kuthambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District for ingress and egress for tractors and other modern machinery into the petitioner's lands comprised in Survey Nos.94/2, 153/2B, 156/1, 172/38, 172/54C3, 148/1A, and 172/4A situated at Kuthambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2021 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for several years the petitioner had been using S.No.160, which is a Government land to reach the land belongs to the petitioner at Survey Nos.94/2, 153/2B, 156/1, 172/38,

¶28

2 / 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.26133 of 2022

¶31

172/54C3, 148/1A, and 172/4A situated at Kuthambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District. Therefore, in order to give a way ie., ingress and egress for the petitioner to reach his land at the above survey numbers, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 05.07.2021 to the respondent Department and in order to consider the same, the present writ petition has been moved.

¶32

fThis Court feels that the petitioner's right to have ingress and egress to his properties through the property of the respondent Department is nothing but easementary right, which has to be established by the petitioner by approaching the competent Court of Law. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction by way of a mandamus before this Court as sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his rights.

¶33

29.09.2022

¶34

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST

¶35

¶36

3 / 5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.26133 of 2022

¶39

1.The Director

¶40

Department of Agriculture Marketing and Agri Business, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶41

2.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Collectorate, Thiruvallur.

¶42

3.The Deputy Director of Agriculture Agri Business, Department of Agriculture and Agri Business, Thiruvallur.

¶43

4.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶44

4 / 5

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.26133 of 2022

¶47

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶48

KST

¶49

W.P.No. 26133 of 2022

¶50

29.09.2022

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5 / 5

K.S.Mohan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Mohan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Dinesh Kumar Vs The Director of Technical Education

M/s. Novel Impex Vs Mr.S.a.Usmani

S.Anitha Vs The Tahsildar

N.v.Nathan Vs The Tahsildar

Dr.Arunkumar N.R Vs The state of Tamil nadu