The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging an order that allowed the government to fence a government cart tract (Vandipathai) to prevent encroachment, subject to leaving 23 feet open for the appellant's ingress and egress. The court held the fencing was legal and the appellant should approach civil court for any further rights claim.
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.
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.2432 of 2024 and
CMP No.17227 of 2024
K.Velumani ... Appellant
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 13.06.2024 made in W.P.No.20819 of 2023. For Appellant : Mr.K.Sharath Chandran For Respondents : Mr. A.Edwin Prabakar, State Government Pleader, Assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman
Page 1 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This intra court appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.06.2024 made in W.P.No.20819 of 2023.
Page 2 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
counter affidavit that, in order to prevent the encroachment and also to protect the government land, the government has taken steps to erect fencing surrounding the Vandipathai.
Page 3 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
petitioner's property through the Vandipathai. Assailing the above order,
the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.
boundary of the appellant's land, measuring 110 feet, adjoins the cart tract and he is entitled to access to the cart tract from any point along the 110 feet, whereas, the learned Single Judge has ordered only 23 feet of the 110 feet to be left open for access by the appellant and the rest to be fenced, which is against the law.
Page 4 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
legitimate one and no hindrance or hardship would be caused to the appellant, while executing the said proposal, the learned Judge has ordered as supra. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
State Government Pleader and we have perused the materials on record.
Page 5 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
in order to prevent the encroachment, cannot said to be illegal. However, the appellant is having access only through the said Cart tract in S.No.14/3 to enter his property on the southern side. The learned Judge has considered the fact that on the north, the petitioner's property is bound by the lower Bavani Project Canal and to the west and east, there are private properties and hence, the ingress to the petitioner's property is primarily through the frontage, abutting the Vandipathai at southern side. In such circumstances, the respondents have agreed to left open 23 feet on the perimeter of the Vandipathai for ingress and egress of the petitioner's property. However, without accepting the same, the appellant contended that he has right to access the public road from every point of his property at his southern side, which is, in our view, has no merits and it cannot be granted. Therefore, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Page 6 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
Therefore, we are of the view that, if the appellant is having any legal right
in the vandipathai, which is subject matter of the property, he can approach
the civil court seeking remedy.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(D.K.K., A.CJ.) (P.B.B.J.)
Internet: Yes/No 13.08.2024 Index : Yes/No mst
To
Page 7 of 8
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and P.B.BALAJI, J.
mst
W.A.No.2432 of 2024
13.08.2024
Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to unobstructed access along the entire 110 feet frontage of his property against the government's proposal to fence the cart tract leaving only 23 feet open.
K.Velumani
The District Collector, Erode District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode Revenue Division
The Tahsildar, Erode Taluk
D.Krishnakumar
P.B.Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
