A. Subbiah vs The District Collector and Others

R. Subbiah, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 herein from allowing the third respondent herein, his men, agents or any one claiming under him from putting up any proposed unlawful and illegal construction on the road in the government poramboke land in front of the petitioner''s tea stall in S. No. 429/9 (Old S. No. 22/3 Pt) Rengappa Naickenpatti, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property measuring to an extent of 229 1/2 Sq. ft. comprised in Survey No. 429/9 (Old No. 22/3pt) situated at Rengappa Naickenpatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul under the control of the third respondent, having acquired the same in a family partition deed dated 01.02.2004 among the brothers. In the said property, the petitioner had put up a small bunk and is running a tea stall. The petitioner had also obtained electricity service connection from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and his property is also assessed to tax by the third respondent. In front of the petitioner''s property where the tea stall situates, there is a mud road on government poramboke land. The said road is the only way to his property for ingress and egress. Similarly, the said mud road runs east to west on the northern side. The said road on government poramboke land is the only way to approach the Viruveedu Theppathupatti Salai and Teachers Colony. The said mud road is 7 feet road which has been in existence and in use for more than 100 years. While so, on 03.12.2014, the third respondent along with his men came in front of the petitioner''s shop and measured the road on the government poramboke land and marked the entire extent of the road. When the petitioner enquired about the same, he was informed that since the land is a natham land, a building is going to be constructed there. When the petitioner had objected that it is a road on government poramboke land and that if any construction is put up on the road, he would be deprived of any access to his property. In fact, the revenue records, sketch and Field Map Book would disclose the road as a government poramboke land. As per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, government poramboke land vests under the control of the District Collector, the first respondent herein. Hence, the third respondent has no power or authority to deal with the government poramboke land without prior sanction from the first respondent. Further, the road and street on government poramboke land are open to all and vested with the first respondent herein. However, the third respondent herein immediately after marking the road on government poramboke land on 03.12.2014 has started digging the road with his men for putting up unauthorized and illegal construction affecting the ingress and egress to the petitioner''s property and other users of the road. Hence, the petitioner had sent a representation on 03.12.2014 to the respondents to stop the digging work on the road on government poramboke land in front of the petitioner''s shop. But the said representation was not considered. Now, the third respondent has almost blocked the entire road and further they are not allowing the petitioner and others from using the road for ingress and egress on the road. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2014 seeking interim injunction. This Court, by order dated 09.12.2014 has granted an order of interim injunction.

On appearance, the third respondent has filed counter affidavit in the form of vacate stay petition inter alia stating that it is incorrect to state that there is only one way to reach his property and tea stall and it is equally incorrect to state that if construction is put up on the road he would be left with no road and there would not be any entry to his property. There is a pucca Thar road which passes from North to southwest in front of Survey No. 429/9 wherein the petitioner tea shop is situated. On the north of Survey No. 429/9 and Survey No. 429/2 there was a teachers quarters. Since it was in dilapidated in nature, it has to be removed. There was a demand for panchayat to construct the Panchayat Service Centre building. Therefore, a committee was appointed to select a suitable place. Accordingly, all the village people pointed out to construct the Panchayat Service Centre after removing the dilapidated teachers quarters. Accordingly, the proposal was submitted selecting the place for construction of service centre before the Grama Sabha meeting and the same was resolved by resolution dated 12.10.2004. In fact, the old teachers quarters was removed and in that place only the Village Panchayat Service Centre construction works started. This construction will not in any way obstruct the ingress and egress of the petitioner''s tea shop in any manner. Thus, they sought dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the third respondent is trying to put up construction of Village Panchayat Service Centre affecting his pathway right. If that building is put up, the petitioner will not have way to reach his property.

Per contra the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner is having only one way to reach his property and tea stall and the Village Panchayat Service Centre is going to put up only by removing the dilapidated Teachers quarters. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and thus, he sought dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

Keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side, I have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. In my considered opinion, as disputed question of fact is involved in this case, this Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry or trial in this writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for the petitioner and he has to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.