K NAMBIRAJAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to abstain from laying road in the petitioner's property comprised in Survey Nos.218/6 and 218/7.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the property comprising in Survey Nos.218/6 and 218/7 originally belongs to one Govinda Udayar and Karuppaiah. The petitioner is the son of the said Karuppaiah, and the said property was subsequently allotted to the petitioner's father by way of partition. Thereafter, the petitioner's father was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, on 003.2005, the said Karuppaiah executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and mutation of revenue records have also been made in his favour. While so, in the month of February, 2007, the fourth respondent Commissioner had proposed to lay a thar road between Mudukulam to Pudhunagar through the petitioner land. Since the road has been laid for public purpose, the petitioner has agreed for laying the said road on the Southern side of his property comprising in Survey Nos.218/6 and 218/7, and also gave his consent. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that violating the consent given by the petitioner, the respondents are laying road in the middle of his property.

(3.) It is further stated by the petitioner that in the mean time, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.151 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Pudukottai, seeking for permanent injunction against the respondents 1 and 4 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In the said suit, the fourth respondent has filed a written statement, admitting that the petitioner has given a consent only for laying road on the Southern side of his property. The Trial Court recording the consent given by the petitioner disposed of the suit, directing the respondents 1 and 4 to lay the road as per the consent given by the petitioner. Thereafter, all of a sudden, on 109.2017, the fourth respondent has taken steps to lay road as per the original proposal i.e., in the middle of the petitioner's land, which is in violation of the decree passed in O.S.No.151 of 2007. Immediately, the petitioner approached the respondents and resisted for formation of the road. But without considering his request, the respondents proposed to lay the road. In these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.