R. PALANISAMY Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents 1 to 4. In respect of Respondents 5 to 7, notice through court was served on 15.2.2018 and private notice was also served on 08.2.2018 and proof was also filed. However, today, there is no appearance on behalf of them either in person or through their Learned Counsels. Mr. S. Prabhakar, District Collector, Erode is present in Court and his appearance is dispensed with.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, the property in S.F.No.874 is a natham property meant for natham house sites. He is an agriculturist and has a residence in S.F.No.874/4. To have an access to his residence, the pathway, which is situated in S.F.No. 874/21 is the viable property to his residence; if not so, he cannot enter his house situated in the afore stated S.F.No.874/4. Furthermore, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and is accessing the property situated in S.F.No.874/21.

(3.) The version of the Petitioner is that Respondents 5 to 7 claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property in S.F.No.874/5. The plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that Respondents 5 to 7 have an access through the south north pathway situated on the eastern side of S.F.No.874/5. In fact, the property in S.F.No.875/5 has got a wide frontage abutting the north south pathway. Moreover, the physical features also reveal that Respondents 5 to 7 have got an entrance only from the eastern side.