The main legal point established in the judgment is that the completion of the sewerage line and the petitioner's right to pursue compensation and damages were key factors influencing the court's decision.

ORDER

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.. - The petitioner was the Chairperson of the erstwhile Maduravoyal Town Panchayat. On 28 November 2001, during his tenure as Chairperson, a resolution was passed by the local body to provide sewerage facilities to the area enclosing a list of streets in which ward No 147 of Rukmani Nagar Road, Chennai was included. A scheme was prepared in terms of the request made by the local body.

2. On 3 June 2009, the Government accorded administrative sanction for spending an amount of Rs 57.45 crores. The scheme commenced on 18 August 2009. Sewerage facilities were laid since there was no objection except for an area covering 110 meters at Rukmani Nagar Road. The sewerage main was laid down both upstream and downstream of Rukmani Nagar except to the extent of the 110 meters. The petitioner purchased the property in 2011, inclusive of the road over which the proposed sewerage line was sought to be laid.

3. Certain civil disputes are pending before the civil court as regards the claim of the petitioner in regard to the ownership of the land. Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 67(3) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1978 ['1978 Act']. The petitioner suggested that an alternative route should be taken for laying the sewerage line. On 19 June 2015, an order was passed invoking the provisions of Section 67(3) of the 1978 Act. This gave rise to a writ petition at the behest of the petitioner.

4. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, the Single Judge was informed that almost the entire work was completed save and except to the extent of 110 meters along the Rukmani Nagar Road. The Single Judge held that the residents of three streets would be deprived of sewerage facilities if a realignment as sought by the petitioner were to be granted. The Single Judge observed as follows:

'Residents of the three streets would be deprived of the facility if the realignment as sought for by the petitioner is undertaken. The road has been shown as a public road as stated in the counter affidavit filed, through various documents. In fact it has been shown as such. Even during the tenure of the chairmanship of the petitioner, the scheme was contemplated and proposed by the local body. The road has also been relaid by the local body on two occasions. It is only a link road between Ganga Nagar and Rukmani Nagar.'

5. After noting that the petitioner was himself a party to the resolution in 2001 inspite of which he had purchased the property in 2011, the Single Judge dismissed the petition. The Single Judge observed that prima facie it appeared that there was a public road which was being used for the last few decades and the petitioner who had dealt with the issue in a different capacity in 2001 could not be stated to be unaware of the laying of the sewer line, having purchased the property subsequently in 2011.

6. The petitioner instituted an appeal against the order of the Single Judge. On 27 April 2017, a Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the State government to choose a better option so as to minimize the damage that could be caused to the petitioner by laying the sewer main and sewer pumping station in the land of the petitioner.

7. In the meantime, a Pubic Interest Litigation ['PIL'] was instituted before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The petitioner was impleaded as sixth respondent to the writ petition. The PIL was instituted on behalf of the residents of Ward No. 147 who sought a direction for the completion of the underground drainage work so as to enable them to have the benefit of a sewerage facility. The residents submitted that 15,000 families were affected because of the failure to lay pipelines along the stretch of the 110 meters connecting the underground drainage to the pumping station.

8. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 3 October 2017, adverted to the writ petition instituted by the petitioner which was dismiss