The court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not available to settle private disputes, and directed the petitioner to seek redressal through the competent Civil Forum.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petitioner praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to stall the Second Respondent from making any kind of encroachment much less a compound wall in the 30 feet road situated as the Eastern boundary of Plot No. 76A formed by the Second Respondent as Layout of House sites for the Alagappan Building Society Ltd. Kalai Nagar, in Survey No. 52 situated at Anaiyur Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District by considering his representation, dated 03.09.2017.

2. According to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent/the President, Madurai District Central Co-operative Society Limited, Madurai, is having lands in survey No. 52 situated at Anaiyur Village, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District. As a matter of fact, the Second Respondent/the President, Madurai District Central Co-operative Society Limited, Madurai, with a view to provide house sites for its members, had created an unapproved layout at Kalainagar. The then Assistant Secretary one Vishwanathan S/o Chidambaram Pillai, by means of a registered sale deed, dated 26.04.1974 and also being a member in the office of the Second Respondent/Society, purchased the Plot No. 76A to an extent of 5277 square feet from the Second Respondent. Similarly, the Plot No. 44 situated on the northern side of the Plot No. 76A was purchased by one K.V. Sundararaman S/o Vishwanathan as a member by means of sale deed, dated 17.08.1962. Indeed, in the said sale deed, the Eastern boundary was shown as road. However, for Plot No. 76A, the Eastern boundary was shown as MDDC Colony.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that after purchase of house site from the Second Respondent/Society, the said Vishwanathan constructed a house on the ground floor in Plot No. 76A after obtaining necessary permission from the local body viz. the Aanaiyur Village Panchayat. In fact, on 10.02.1992, the building plan permission was obtained from the Anaiyur Town Panchayat for making additional construction of first floor. Now, the layout area got merged with the First Respondent/Madurai Corporation at the time of extension of the Corporation limit.

4. The version of the Petitioner is that after the death of Vishwanathan, his Son Natarajan derived title over the house property situated in Plot No. 76A by means of a registered Release Deed, dated 16.10.2009, executed by the wife and the Daughter of the said Viswanathan. The Petitioner, on 09.11.2012, purchased the Plot No. 76A together with the building of ground and first floor, for a sum of Rs. 52 lakhs. Ever since the date of purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the said house property and paying house tax regularly and also obtained house site patta in her favour from the Revenue Department.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Eastern boundary of Petitioner's property is a 30 feet road provided by the Second Respondent and while getting building permission, it was shown by Petitioner's vendor as a road. Furthermore, it is represented that the Petitioner's predecessor used the said 30 feet road for access after her purchase. That apart, the Petitioner continues to use the same 30 feet road for her access and in the sale deed of her neighbour for Plot No. 44 executed by the Second Respondent, the Eastern bounder was shown as 30 feet road.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that the Second Respondent/Society is having a vacant site on the Eastern side of 30 feet road and in fact, the Second Respondent tried to put up a compound wall in front of Petitioner's house without providing any gap from the main gate provided by the Petitioner on her house compound wall. Moreover, it is the plea of the Petitioner that on 01.09.2017, the Second Respondent/Society engaged persons to start the initial work of excavating the earth for construct