PATTUKOTTAI POLYTECHNIC SOCIETY Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8917 of 2010 has been filed, challenging the order dated 14.06.2010. The order impugned states that one, Smt.P.Vasantha filed a writ petition, stating that she has no right of pathway to her land on account of the entire land abutting the property is under the occupation of Pattukkottai Polytechnic College and the land belongs to the Government. Thus, the Municipal Commissioner, Pattukkottai, passed the said order dated 14.06.2010, stating that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the Commissioner, Municipality has to provide a pathway to the said Smt.P.Vasantha, so as to reach her property. The said pathway requires 8.02 cents and accordingly, directed the Correspondent, Pattukkottai Polytechnic College, to remove the canteen building in that locality and provide pathway to the said Smt.P.Vasantha.

(2.) Further, it is contended that the compensation amount will be collected from the said Smt.P.Vasantha and the same will be paid to the Pattukkottai Polytechnic College. It is further clarified that as per the judgment of this Court, without affecting the Polytechnic College and more specifically, 8.02 cents of land situated in South-East area, which belongs to the Municipality, is to be allotted to the said Smt.P.Vasantha as pathway. Challenging the said order, Pattukkottai Polytechnic College filed the writ petition on the ground that 20 acres of land was already allotted in favour of the writ petitioner and they are running a Polytechnic College. Thus, without considering the fact that 20 acres of land were already allotted to the Pattukkottai Polytechnic College, the respondent / Commissioner has passed an order, to handover the 8.02 cents of land for the purpose of providing pathway to one, Smt.P.Vasantha, which cannot be given at all. It is stated that the respondent ought to have take measures without insisting upon the writ petitioner to give up their land for the purpose of providing pathway to the third respondent. It is contended that the 2nd respondent cannot force or pressurize the petitioner to forgo 8.02 cents of land, which is in their possession for the purpose of providing a pathway to the third respondent.

(3.) At the outset, the petitioner objected for providing a pathway in favour of Smt.P.Vasantha in respect of the 8.02 cents of land, suggested by the Commissioner, Pattukkottai Municipality. The said matter filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, was transferred along with the other writ petitions pending before this Court in W.P.No.31042 of 2013 and W.P.No.13887 of 2014.