The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea for free ingress and egress through the land in question constituted an easementary right, and the petitioner was advised to seek redress in the competent Civil Court.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, the land comprised in S.No.285/2, measuring an extent of 8.02 acres, belongs to him and the same is situated on the north of the land belonging to the Government in Survey No.285/2, Sukkampalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. After the said land, National Highways viz. Trichy, Palladam – Coimbatore Highways, is situated.

3. The stand of the petitioner is that the only access to his property from the National Highways is through the said Government land. Further, he had come to know that the National Highways Authorities had surveyed the said road and there appears to be some proposal to develop the Highways into 6 track road. In such an event, there is every possibility that the Government land measuring 3.23 acres, would be taken by the Highways Authority for extending the Highways. He had given several representations to various authorities including the District Collector, Tirupur District, viz. the second respondent, requesting the said authority to grant him by way of sale deed or assignment, a passage measuring about 77 square meters i.e., 11 meters x 7 meters, on the south eastern corner of the Government land. Lastly, he made a representation on 12.2.2014, mentioning the aforesaid request, for which the second respondent sent a letter dated 14.2.2014, to the third respondent, whereby directing him to take appropriate action. It appears that the said representation is pending and no decision till date, has been taken in this regard.

4. Added further, the petitioner also takes a plea that his usage as ingress and egress through the Government land situated in Survey No.285/3, Sukkampalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District, coloured in red in the sketch annexed to the injunction petition, may be protected by way of granting interim injunction in his favour, pending disposal of the writ petition.

5. The primordial plea taken on behalf of the petitioner, as seen from para 6 of the averments of the writ affidavit, in a crystalline fashion, shows that the petitioner's main grievance is that the respondents should not prevent his free ingress and egress through the land in question to his property. That apart, he has no other ingress and egress except through the Government land situated in Survey No.285/3, Sukkampalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. Moreover, in the writ petition, he has restricted his access to reach his land only through the pathway coloured in red in the sketch annexed to the injunction petition.

6. On going through the entire gamut of the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit in the writ petition, this Court unhesitatingly comes to an inevitable and irresistible conclusion that the plea of the petitioner relating to his free ingress and egress through the land in question, is one of 'easementary right'. As such, the proper and prudent course for the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court and to seek redress of his grievance in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Viewed in that perspective, the writ petition is per se not maintainable. Resultantly, the writ petition fails.

7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court in the manner known to law and in accordance with law and to seek appropriate remedy, if he so desires or is advised. No costs.