ANF DEENSHA Vs. SECRETARY HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL that piece and parcel of agricultural land measuring 1.14 acres situated in Old No.37 and New No.35, Kanathoor Reddy Kuppam Village, comprised in Survey No.23/3B (Twenty Three by three B) in patta old No.189 and New No.104, the property situated within the territory of Tiruporur Panchayat Union, Chengalpet Taluk and District bounded on the:West bythe big thopeEast byMadras East Coast RoadSouth bythe Punja land bearing R.S. No.22/1 andNorth bythe punja lands of Amina Beebi Ammal and within the Sub Registration District of Chengalpattu, the property measuring in all 114 cents (One hundred and fourteen cents) present market value Rs.1,65,000/-.

(2.) ALL that piece and parcel of agricultural lands measuring 15 cents (fifteen cents) on the southern side out of 75 cents in Survey No.3/2D1 (Three/Two D One) of Uthandi Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District and bounded on the:North by Cart TrackEast by Lands belonging to TiruvengadNaicker and C.S. D. Gnanasundra NaickerSouth byValliammal's House West byMuttukadu Roadand situate within the Registration Sub District of Adyar and within the Registration District of South Madras.Prayer in W.P. No.17372 of 2009:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.TN.Notification in G.O.Ms.No.58, Highways (HV2), 21 March 2002/No.II(2)/HW/241 (C-1)/2002 and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus and further to direct the respondent to exempt the petitioner's vehicles shown in the schedule hereunder entering into the toll road to reach the property of the petitioner from payment of toll.Schedule of vehiclesVehicle name Vehicle no.Lancer CarTN 01 T 7866Honda City CarTN 01 T 4224Maruthi VanTN 01 P 2263Maruthi DzireTN 01-AH 9203)Common Order:The petitioner owns an immovable property in Kanathur. In the building constructed over there, there is an out-house and a servant quarters. A number of staff employed by the petitioner are working in the petitioner's immovable property. The petitioner and his family members own four vehicles.2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is regularly visiting his property in Kanathur. Sometimes, he also stays over there. The petitioner has to travel on East Coast Road from his residence to reach his property at Kanathur. ALLeging that the respondents are collecting a sum of Rs.45/- per return trip and a sum of Rs.25/- for up or down trip for using the East Coast Road without providing any facility, the petitioner prays to quash G.O. Ms.No.58, Highways (HV2) Department dated 21.03.2002. The petitioner also sought for exemption from collection of toll for his vehicles.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owns an out-house and a servant quarters where 8 employees are staying in his property in Kanathur Village. THE petitioner has to ply on the road to carry on his day-to-day activities in his property in Kanathur Village. It is unjust to direct the petitioner to produce ration card when he is a permanent resident of Purasawalkam. It is further submitted that the petitioner is directed to pay toll for up and down trips, despite the fact that his property at Kanathur Village is located just 3 kms. away from the tollgate. It is vehemently contended that a discrimination is practised as against the property owners who have their out-house and servant quarters on the sole ground that they are not the local residents of the village. Citing some decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when no facility is provided by the second respondent, the second respondent is not entitled to collect toll. It is further submitted that toll for one way trip alone can be charged just for entering into the Corporation limit.