K.Prasath Vs The State represented

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.19838 of 2023 dated 07.03.2024 by allowing the writ appeal.

¶27

For Appellant : Mr.D.Gurusamy For R-1,R-2,R-4 & R-5 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate. For For-6 : Mr.A.Natrajan, Senior counsel, for Mr.R.Anandaraj. For R-3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Standing counsel. For R-7 : Mr.Mohamed Imran, for M/s.Ajmal Associates. For R-8 : No appearance. * * *

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶30

Heard both sides.

¶31

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

¶32

2/5

¶33

3 W.A.(MD)NO.1523 OF 2024

¶34

The appellant herein is a resident of Seethapatti Village in Oddanchathram Taluk, Dindigul District. He owns 1 acre and 88 cents of land in survey No.443. The appellant concedes that nilaviyal pathai runs through his patta land. However, he opposes laying of tar road. To forbear the authorities from laying any tar road on the said nilaviyal pathai, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.19838 of 2023 was filed. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 07.03.2024. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶35

We called upon the revenue authorities to clarify the width of the road. It is submitted that the width of the road is only 8 feet. It appears that on the nilaviyal pathai which was originally shown in the revenue record, the appellant herein had built a home and also erected a well. We are of the view that since this position has been obtaining for the last several decades, it should not be disturbed. The road that is now proposed to be laid shall not in any way affect the appellant's home or well. We further direct that the width of the road shall not exceed 8 feet.

¶36

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

¶37

3/5

¶38

4 W.A.(MD)NO.1523 OF 2024

¶39