S PALANICHAMY GOUNDAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in S.No.92/2AL in Pulikutthy Village, Uthammapalayam Taluk, Theni District. The said property is situated on the west adjoining Chinnamanur-Sankarapuram Rural Highway. The petitioner has made a construction in the said property.

(2.) The third respondent President of Pulikutthy Village Panchayat started putting up a bus shelter on the margin of the highway. The petitioner would submit that obstruction made by way of constructing a bus shelter is not permissible. He asserts his right to have access to the highway from any part of his property. Alleging that the bus shelter put up by the third respondent has affected the right to have an access to the highway, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition directing the third respondent not to put up a bus shelter on the highway margin.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the provision under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 would submit that the State Highways Authority may grant permission to put up any temporary structure with the concurrence of the Collector. But, in this case, there is no material to show that the Collector gave concurrence to the Highways Authority to permit the third respondent to put up a bus shelter. Referring to Section 127 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Village Panchayat is bound to obtain previous consent of the highways department even to break up the soil on the public road belonging to the highways department. No previous sanction was obtained in this case by the third respondent from the highways department to put up a construction on the highway margin. Referring to the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 05.04.2010, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent had in fact plunged into action, on coming to know that the third respondent has started putting up a bus shelter in front of the property of the petitioner. Referring to a couple of decisions of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who has his property by the side of the highways, is entitled to have access to the highway from all the points of his property. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner has made out a case as against the third respondent and therefore, the third respondent shall be restrained from putting up bus shelter in front of the property.