Dismissed

M.Babu v. The Assistant Director of Panchayats

Madras HC20 Sept 2023WP/3705/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeking a mandate to prevent conversion of a public road for a school compound was dismissed. The court relied on the Tahsildar's report confirming no obstruction and finding the wall necessary for school safety, noting the petitioner had an alternate access path.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

M.Babu Vs The Assistant Director of Panchayats — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.No.3705 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.4229 of 2021

M.Babu

… Petitioner

vs.

1.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Cuddalore – 607 001.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.The Commissioner/ Block Development Office, Kurinjipadi Panchayat Union, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶13

4.The President, Thayyalgunampattinam Panchayat, Thayyalgunampattinam, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District. … Respondents

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

¶18

issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to convert the public road in S.No.224/12, 145 Sq.metres in Thayyalgunampattinam Village, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District for any other purpose.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar

¶20

For R1 & R2 : Mr.E.Vijayanand, Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.M.Elumalai

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.]

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents not to convert the public road in S.No.224/12, 0.0145 Sq.metres in Thayyalgunampattinam Village, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District for any other purpose.

¶25

2.According to the petitioner, the land in Survey No.224/12 measuring an extent of 0.0145 Sq.mtrs. is a public road and has been in existence for more than 50 years. The said road was laid by the petitioner's grand father and later improved as a cement road about 12 years back. According to the petitioner

¶26

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

¶27

2/9

¶28

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶29

there is a school on the western side of the road and in the guise of laying a compound wall the respondents attempted to block the road. According to the petitioner, the residents of Amman Koil Street and the villagers use the road to bring their agricultural products and to reach the temple, ration shop, water tank, pond etc. Against the act of the respondents in trying to block the road various representations were given by the petitioner to the respondents 1 to 3 and the Chief Minister's Cell. In pursuance of the petitioner's representations, the third respondent directed his subordinates to conduct inspection and file a report vide communication dated 23.09.2020. As no inspection was conducted, the third respondent though undertook to make the inspection personally failed to inspect. The petitioner further stated that an attempt was being made to obstruct the road by constructing Toilets and other public utility services. Hence left with no other option the petitioner filed the writ petition for the above said relief.

¶30

3.The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the Survey

¶31

No.224/12 was classified as a road and was utilised only as a road till date. The

¶32

3/9

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶35

respondent questioned the bonafides of the petitioner stating that the real object of the petitioner in filing the writ petition was to prevent the official respondents from constructing a compound wall for the Thayyalgunampattinam Panchayat Union Elementary School. The respondent further stated that it was merely an apprehension of the petitioner that the official respondents were attempting to close the road, preventing the ingress and egress to the petitioner's house.

¶36

4.The matter was taken up for hearing on 28.08.2023 and after considering the rival contentions, this Court passed an order directing the Tahsildar, the second respondent herein, to inspect the compound wall in question and to file a report on whether the compound wall obstructed the road, thus preventing the ingress and egress to the petitioner's house.

¶37

5.In pursuance of the above said order of this Court, the Tahsildar filed his

¶38

report on 02.09.2023 along with a copy of the sketch. The relevant portion of the Tahsildar's report is as follows:

¶39

4/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶42

“@Cuhl;rp xd;wpa bjhlf;fg; gs;spf;F mUfpy; cs;s mk;kd; nfhapy; Fl;il ghJfhg;gw;w NH;epiyapy; cs;sjhYk;. gs;spapd; thapw;g[uk; jhh;rhiy cs;sjhYk;. gps;isapd; ghJfhg;g[ fUjp gs;spf;f Rw;Wr;Rth; mikj;J nfl; mikg;gJ mtrpakhd xd;whFk;/

¶43

1/nkw;fz;l fpuhk g[y vz;/224-12. 0/0145 r/kP/ vt;tpj fl;Lkhdkpd;wp eilghijahfnt cs;sJ/ nkw;go eilghij gs;sp khzth;fs; kw;Wk; epaha tpiyf;filf;F bry;y gad;gLj;jg;gl;L tUfpwJ.

¶44

2.nkw;fz;l fpuhk g[y vz;/224-12. 0/0145 r/kP/ vt;tpj fl;LkhdKk; ,y;iy/

¶45

3.nkw;go fpuhk ej;jk; g[y vz;/224-12. 0/0182 r/kP muR Cuhl;rp xd;wpa bjhlf;fg;gs;sp bray;gl;L tUfpwJ/

¶46

4.muR bjhlf;fg;gs;sp fl;llk; vd;gjhy;. fl;ll chpkk; tl;lhl;rpah; K:ykhf tH';fg;gLtjpy;iy/

¶47

vdnt. Cuhl;rp xd;wpa bjhlf;fg;gs;sp Rw;Wr; Rth; mikg;gjhy; kDjhuUf;F vt;tpj ghjpg;g[k; ,y;iy vd;gjhYk;. Kdjhuh; bry;tjw;F khw;W tHp

¶48

5/9

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶51

cs;sJ vd;gjhYk; ,t;tHf;fpid js;Sgo bra;a ghpe;Jiu bra;fpnwd; vd;gijg; gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/@

¶52

6.The writ petitioner has filed his objection to the report, and we have considered it. The Tahsildar's report clearly states that there is absolutely no obstruction on the public road in Survey No.224/12 and that the construction of the compound wall for the school does not effect the petitioner because the petitioner has an alternate way. It is pertinent to note here that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the road in Survey No.224/12 is the only access to his house and the alternate road is only a narrow path way. Therefore, it is admitted by the petitioner that there is an alternate path way to his house.

¶53

7.The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compound wall with a gate is absolutely necessary for the school because anti-social elements were using the school premises for anti-social activities during the night hours. As the report of the Tahsildar is categorical that the petitioner would not be affected by the construction of the compound wall and also because we feel that the compound wall is necessary for the safety of the school

¶54

6/9

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶57

children, we find no merits in the writ petition and so the same is dismissed.

¶58

8.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the

¶59

connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to

¶60

costs.

¶61

J.N.B.J., N.M.J.,

¶62

20.09.2023

¶63

Index: yes/no Internet : yes/no

¶64

¶65

¶66

1.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Cuddalore – 607 001.

¶67

2.The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶68

3.The Commissioner/ Block Development Office, Kurinjipadi Panchayat Union, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶69

7/9

¶70

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

¶71

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶72

4.The President, Thayyalgunampattinam Panchayat, Thayyalgunampattinam, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶73

J.NISHA BANU, J. & N.MALA, J.

¶74

8/9

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.3705 of 2021

¶77

¶78

W.P.No.3705 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.4229 of 2021

¶79

20.09.2023

¶80

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

¶81

9/9

M.Babu v. The Assistant Director of Panchayats

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Babu v. The Assistant Director of Panchayats

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.Sree Krishna Vs The Principal Secretary / Commissioner

M.Sree Krishna, Vs The Principal Secretary / Commissioner

P.R.Palani, Vs Executive Engineer

P.Thillaikarasi Vs The Director of Town and Country planning

A.Poongavanam Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer