MINI K PAI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third attempt by the petitioner to get the respondents to concede a right of way to the petitioner's property through the road used by the 2nd respondent as access to the fire station near to the petitioner's property. The Government acquired certain property for the purpose of establishment of a fire station at Cherthala. This property lies between the Hospital Road and Alappuzha Cherthala road. According to the petitioner, before the acquisition, the above two roads had access to each other through the acquired property. When the acquired property was enclosed by compound walls, this access got blocked. The only right of access to her property now is through the road leading to the property acquired for the fire station. The employees of the fire station started blocking the pathway leading to the petitioner's property from the road towards the fire station by parking old vehicles on the mouth of the pathway leading to the petitioner's property. In the said circumstances, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 3289/2004. In that case, by Ext. P9 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Tahsildar to make reverification and issue instructions to the fire force in regard to the parking of old vehicles in such a way without obstructing the petitioner's access to her house. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that if there is another road access to the petitioner's house, there is no need to provide road facility over the Government's property to the petitioner's property and the fire force is free to use their property and road to the exclusion of others, including the petitioner. Complaining violation of the above said judgment the petitioner again the petitioner approached this Court by filing CCC No. 358/2004. In that contempt case, the learned Single Judge directed the Collector to decide the matter in the light of Ext. P9 judgment. Pursuant to the same, the Collector passed Ext. P12 order holding that the petitioner had formed a new road to her house beginning from the boundary of the property acquired for the fire force and former access to the petitioner's property was through the other side. Apparently on the ground that the petitioner had another access to her property, the Collector held that the petitioner has no right for a road through the acquired property. Ext. P12 order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it was stated that the petitioner got property after a partition in the family. Before the partition, all the houses had a common pathway on the other side. It was deliberately closed and the petitioner formed a new access to her property beginning from the boundary of the acquired property and this was for claiming a new access to her property. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the properties of the family including the petitioner's had a common pathway and it is after having been convinced of this fact that the District Collector has passed the order, Ext. P12, that too, after conducting a site inspection. On these averments, the respondents would strongly oppose the writ petition.

(3.) I have heard counsel on both sides.