D S BHATT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandmus calling for the records of the third respondent relating to the impugned order in C.No.380/08 dated 01.02.2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioner of S.No.176 of Vengambakkam village, Chengalpattu taluk, Kanchipuram District.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 1 acre and 05 cents of land in S.No.97/7B and S.No.10/1B, now sub-divided as 10/1B2 and Survey No.11/6 now sub-divided as 11/6B2 at Nedungundram Village, Tambaram taluk and an extent of 0.52 acres in S.No.435/1A2 of Unamancheri Village, Chengalpat Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It was also submitted that the abovesaid lands were purchased by the petitioner and his father under registered sale deeds from the Official Liquidator, Madras in the year 2007. THE said lands purchased by the petitioner"s father also came to be settled in favour of the petitioner. In the light of the above settlement the petitioner has become the absolute owner of the property mentioned above. THE petitioner has also established a factory in their own land after obtaining necessary planning permission from the local authority by providing all infrastructural facilities for manufacturing and export of Power Coated stands for Hammock and swings as well as by employing 250 employees. It is also submitted that the petitioner Company is an 100% export oriented unit. THE grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the access to the petitioner factory is only through a 3 feet passage. As the said narrow passage is causing impediment to the persons coming to the petitioner Company and the vehicles used by the Company are also not able to come to the factory by transporting raw materials and finished goods, the petitioner approached the third respondent for permission to use the disputed land as pathway for movement of heavy vehicles into and outside the petitioner"s property. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also received a notice from the third respondent dated 20.02.2009 alleging that the Tamil Nadu Forest Department doubts about the instructions given by the first respondent in Ref.No.74646/06/N dated 21.02.2006 in which the Reserved Forest Area was mentioned as "Varathu Kalvai" in S.No.176. THE petitioner further submitted a detailed explanation to the notice dated 15.3.2009 seeking permission to use the disputed land as pathway and requested the authorities to permit him to use the land either on lease or on outright sale. Since the representation dated 15.3.2009 was not considered, the petitioner came to this Court by filing W.P.No.9357/2009 and this Court by disposing of the said Writ Petition by order dated 03.6.2009 directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner"s representation dated 15.3.2009. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the respondent finally passed an order stating that the disputed pathway is covered by the land which is classified as "water body" and therefore, the respondent could not consider the case of the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected pending M.Ps. are also dismissed.