BAKTHAVATSALU NAIDU Vs. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, VILLUPURAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings dated 25.11.2017 of the first respondent rejecting his request to shift the construction of public lavatory in front of his property.

(2.) Mr. M.R. Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of a land to an extent of 885 sq.ft. comprised in New Survey No.179/3, subdivided as S.No.179/11, Tiruchitrambalam Village, Vannur Taluk, Villupuram District. The said property is situated abetting the National Highways No.66 (Pondicherry to Tindivanam) on the intersection of Tiruchitrambalam-Aurovile road. The petitioner is also running a Tiffin stall in the vacant land of his property facing NH-66. However, all of a sudden, on 29.09.2017, the second respondent, by levelling the land in front of his property, had sunk a bore-well in front of his property and on enquiry, he was informed that the second respondent is proposing to construct the Public Lavatory covering the entire frontage of his property to an extent of 30 feet. Apart from this hindrance to his ingress and egress to his property, the second respondent is also planning to construct septic tank, therefore, it is pleaded, construction of septic tank in the said place would ultimately lead to contamination of his borewell situated within his land. Therefore, it is contended, the said proposal of the second respondent is highly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said approach of the respondents, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No.27017 of 2017 seeking a direction to the respondents to desist from commissioning/constructing of a Public Lavatory in front of his property comprised in New Survey No.179/3, Tiruchitrambalam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. This Court, in its order dated 13.10.2017, disposed of the said writ petition, without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directing the first respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the first respondent, vide his impugned proceedings dated 25.11.2017, rejected the request of the petitioner to relocate the proposed Public Lavatory to any other location near the toll plaza.