Allowed¶43

M.Ganesan @ Kutti Ganesan v. the District Collector

Writ of mandamus – Construction of bus shelter

Madras HC4 Nov 2025WP(MD)/24294/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Property access – bus shelter – Vickramasingapuram Municipality – Tirunelveli – Article 226 mandamus – sole access blocked – road margin access from any point – Advocate Commissioner report – 4 feet gap – 5½ feet western access – roof at 7 feet – W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018 – Madras High Court, Madurai Bench – P.T.ASHA, J. – allowed on 04.11.2025 – restraint on construction in front of S.No.525.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus granted: the 2nd respondent is restrained from constructing the bus shelter in front of the petitioner's property bearing S.No.525 of Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.21980 of 2018) closed. ¶43

M.Ganesan @ Kutti Ganesan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the 2nd respondent not to construct a bus shelter in front of the petitioner's property bearing Survey No.525, Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, on the ground that it would block his sole access to the property. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

A person owning property adjacent to a road margin is entitled to access the road from any point of their property.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

On the Advocate Commissioner's report, sketch and photographs, the petitioner's apprehension is justified: the bus shelter would totally prevent access to the petitioner's property.

¶39

Key takeaways

It is well open to the respondents to choose another location to put up the bus shelter.obiter¶39
The writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is restrained from constructing the bus shelter in front of the petitioner's property bearing S.No.525 of Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus – Construction of bus shelter – Petitioner's vacant land in S.No.525, Vickramasingapuram Village (about 2824.47 sq.ft) held by his father under registered Sale Deed dated 22.04.1972 and devolving on the petitioner and his brothers under a registered Will dated 31.08.2005 upon the father's death on 08.09.2012 – 2nd respondent Municipality, at the instance of its Commissioner (3rd respondent), chose to construct a bus shelter on Vickramasingapuram Main Road directly in front of the property, allegedly blocking its sole access; representation dated 04.12.2018 not considered – On the respondents' plea of 30 feet frontage, Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner (order dated 29.01.2019) who inspected on 03.02.2019 when the shelter was half built and reported only a 4-foot gap, complete prevention of access on the eastern side and only 5½ feet access on the western side, the roof at 7 feet barring passage of persons or vehicles – Held: a person owning property adjacent to a road margin is entitled to access the road from any point of the property; the apprehension of total blockage stood established; respondents free to choose another location – Writ petition allowed; 2nd respondent restrained from constructing the bus shelter in front of S.No.525. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.24294 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.21980 of 2018

¶8

M.Ganesan @ Kutti Ganesan

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶12

The Municipal Commissioner, Vickramasingapuram Municipality, Vickramasingapurm, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

Mr.Ponnambalam, Municipal Commissioner, Vickramasingapuram Municipality, Vickramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to construct the bus shelter in front of the property of the petitioner bearing Survey No.525 of Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by blocking th sole access to the property, and pass such further or other orders.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Thesingan For R1 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For R2 : H.Arumugam

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The above writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent not to construct the bus shelter in front of the property of the petitioner bearing Survey No.525 of Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by blocking the sole access to his property.

¶22

It is the contention of the petitioner that the lands in S.No.525 measuring about 2824.47 Sq.ft originally belonged to his father under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.04.1972. His father has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property since then and on 31.08.2005 executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner and his brothers.

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶26

The petitioner's father passed away on 08.09.2012 and the 'Will' came into effect on the said date. The petitioner would submit that since they were in exclusive possession of the property, the petitioner and his brothers decided to construct a house in the said property.

¶27

At this juncture, the 2^nd respondent decided to construct the bus shelter on the Vickramasingapuram Main Road and despite there being more suitable places else where chose to construct it right in front of the petitioner's property. This decision was taken by the 3^rd respondent who is the commissioner of the 2^nd respondent owing to a previous enmity between him and the family. The 2^nd respondent immediately started work for construction of the bus shelter.

¶28

The petitioner would submit that if the bus shelter is put up, their access to the property would be totally blocked and they had no other access into their property. The petitioner would further submit that the 2^nd respondent was attempting to now proceed hastily with the above construction and immediately on 04.12.2018, the petitioner had addressed

¶29

3/8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶32

a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to not proceed with the construction which representation was not even considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

It appears that this Court by order dated 29.01.2019, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property note down its physical features, measure length and breadth of the bus shelter and the ingress and egress that is available to the petitioner and whether any right of access was obstructed.

¶34

This Court had passed the above order on account of the fact that the respondents had taken out a defense that the petitioner continued to enjoy 30 feet frontage and there was no question of blocking his property. Pursuant to this order, the Advocate Commissioner has also visited the property in question on 03.02.2019 in the presence of the petitioner's counsel and the staff of the respondents. At the time of the visit, the bus shelter was half constructed. The Advocate Commissioner has opined as follows:-

¶35

4/8

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶38

“5. In front of the petitioner's vacant site (PQRS in my sketch) the respondent is constructing the disputed new Bus Shelter which prevent the petitioner to approach his property. The distance between the petitioner property and bus shelter is 4 feet (four feet) only. On the eastern side of this property the disputed bus shelter completely prevent the access to the petitioner's vacant site. On the western side the petitioner have only 5 ½ feet access to his property because the roof of the bus shelter at the height of 7 feet prevent any body or vehicle to approach this property. ”

¶39

A mere reading of this together with sketch and photographs submitted by the Advocate Commissioner clearly shows that the petitioner apprehension is justified and in fact the bus shelter would totally prevent access to the petitioner's property. A person owning property adjacent to a road margin is entitled to access the road from any point of their property. It is well open to the respondents to choose another location to put up the bus shelter. Further all these years the bus shelter should have been operated else where as the disputed bus shelter is half finished.

¶40

5/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶43

In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the 2^nd respondent is restrained from constructing the bus shelter in front of the property of the petitioner bearing S.No.525 of Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

04.11.2025

¶45

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm

¶46

6/8

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶49

¶50

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶51

The Municipal Commissioner, Vickramasingapuram Municipality, Vickramasingapurm, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶52

Mr.Ponnambalam, Municipal Commissioner, Vickramasingapuram Municipality, Vickramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶53

7/8

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.24294 of 2018

¶56

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶57

rgm

¶58

W.P.(MD).No.24294 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.21980 of 2018

¶59

04.11.2025

¶60

8/8

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Decision of the 2nd respondent Municipality (decision taken by its Commissioner, the 3rd respondent) to construct a bus shelter on Vickramasingapuram Main Road directly in front of the petitioner's property S.No.525, which the petitioner alleges would block his sole access to the property.¶27
Vickramasingapuram Municipality (2nd respondent)
Prior proceeding
The lands in S.No.525 measuring about 2824.47 sq.ft originally belonged to the petitioner's father under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.04.1972.¶22
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's father executed a registered Will on 31.08.2005 in favour of the petitioner and his brothers.¶22
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's father passed away on 08.09.2012, on which date the Will came into effect.¶26
Prior proceeding
On 04.12.2018 the petitioner addressed a representation to respondents 1 and 2 requesting that they not proceed with the construction.¶28
Prior proceeding
The representation was not considered, whereupon the petitioner approached this Court.¶32
Prior proceeding
The respondents defended the petition on the ground that the petitioner continued to enjoy 30 feet frontage and there was no question of blocking his property.¶34
Prior proceeding
By order dated 29.01.2019 this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property, note its physical features, measure the bus shelter and the ingress and egress available to the petitioner.¶33
Prior proceeding
The Advocate Commissioner visited the property on 03.02.2019 in the presence of the petitioner's counsel and the respondents' staff; at that time the bus shelter was half constructed.¶34
Prior proceeding
Advocate Commissioner's finding: the disputed new bus shelter prevents the petitioner from approaching his vacant site; the distance between the property and the bus shelter is only 4 feet, and on the eastern side the shelter completely prevents access.¶38
Prior proceeding
Advocate Commissioner's finding: on the western side the petitioner has only 5 1/2 feet access because the roof of the bus shelter at a height of 7 feet prevents any person or vehicle from approaching the property.¶38

M.Ganesan @ Kutti Ganesan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganesan @ Kutti Ganesan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Balamurugan Vs The Tamilnadu Dr.Mgr Medical University

V.Balakrishnan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Beer Fathima Vs The Regional Passport Officer

A.Martin Vs The Director of Municipal Administration

Balaji Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Rabeek Vs The Bureau of Immigration