Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
P. Paul Petrock & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The Collector, Tiruvallur & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 26047, 26053 & 26056 of 2019 & W.M.P. Nos. 25437, 25438, 25442 of 2019
Decided On : 04-11-2019
For the Petitioners:S. Ilamvaludhi, V. Karthikeyan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:N. Inbanathan, Additional Government Pleader, P. Srinivas, P.K. Sabapathi, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that lawful land ownership and access rights are crucial factors in resolving land disputes.
Headnote:
Writ Petitions - Land Dispute - S.Nos.145/4, 7 and 8 of Sekkadu Village - The Court discussed the validity of the layout, ownership of the land, and the rights of the petitioners and the 4th respondent. The key legal provisions discussed include land ownership, lawful purchase, and access rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of plots in an unapproved layout and alleged that the 4th respondent was obstructing their entry and exit by laying a road to his property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had purchased residential plots in an unapproved layout, while the 4th respondent had lawfully purchased land adjacent to the layout. The Court denied the petitioners' allegation that their access to residences would be curtailed by the road construction.
Issues: Validity of layout, ownership of land, obstruction of entry and exit, and access rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners could not prevent the 4th respondent from utilizing their lawfully purchased property and that the petitioners had access to public roads, thus dismissing the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed as devoid of merits, and the petitioners were given liberty to seek relief before the competent Civil Court.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in W.P.Nos.26047, 26053 & 26056 of 2019: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to lay road at Sr.No.145/4, 7 & 8 of No.6, Sekkadu Village, Avadi Township as per the layout sanctioned by the 2nd respondent.)
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents.
2. Contention of the Petitioners in brief:
W.P.No.26047 of 2019:
The petitioner/Mr. P. Paul Petrock, claims that, he purchased Plot No.9, Defence colony, Gopalapuram, situated at Sorancherry Madura Sekkadu Village, from one C. Muthuraj by a registered sale deed duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kundrathur, on 02.12.2009. He has constructed a house in the said property and enjoying the same since 2009. It is a corner plot lying at the dead end of the street.
W.P.No.26053 of 2019:
The petitioner/Mrs. R. Muthulakshmi claims that, she purchased Plot No.7, Defence Colony, Gopalapuram, situated at Sorancherry Madura Sekkadu Village from one M. Sankaralingam by a registered sale deed duly registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kundrathur on 23.02.2005. She has constructed a house in the said plot and enjoying the same since 2005.
W.P.No.26056 of 2019:
The petitioner/K. Murugan claims that, his sister purchased Plot No.7, to an extent of 2379 sq.ft at Defence Colony, Gopalapuram situated at Sorancherry Madura Serkkadu Village from one M. Sankaralingam by a registered sale deed duly registered at Sub-Registrar Office at Kundrathur on 23.02.2005. Subsequently, his sister settled 1052 1/2 sq.ft of land vide settlement deed duly registered on 08.07.2011. He has constructed a house in his portion and enjoying the same without any interruption since 2011.
3. The common grievance of the petitioners herein is that, they have constructed the house with Panchayat permission and holding valid Patta. The plots of the layout covers Survey Nos.145/4, 145/7 and 145/8 of Serkkadu Village. The North of the layout is a 20 feet road which is used by the petitioners and other plot owners for reaching the main road. While so, the 4th respondent has dumped full sand and mud to lay a road to his property in Plot No.4 by obstructing their entry and exit to their respective houses from the main road. Presently, the 4th respondent is laying road as if, he is the owner of the Plot Nos.6, 13 and 15 to 24. The 4th respondent had taken law in his hands and atrociously curtailing the rights of the other plot owners in that street. The 4th respondent/School is 2 km away from the plots. He is trying to convert the land into a play ground for the School and lying road for the play ground.
4. The 2nd respondent, who is the Commissioner of Avadi Municipal Corporation on the direction of this Court, has filed status report and for the 3rd respondent the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Avadi has filed common counter affidavit for all the three writ petitions.
5. According to the status report of the 2nd respondent and the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the layout which the petitioners have constructed houses falls in S.Nos.145/4, 7 and 8 of Sekkadu Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District. As per revenue records S.No.145/8 (0.08.5 ares) is classified as “Eri Ulvoy” which is purely a water body. S.No.145/4 (28.5 ares) and S.No.147/7 (0.24.5 ares) have been classified as “Ryotwari Manavari” which is private patta land in the name of Mari Naicker (patta No. 334). The layout is not an approved layout. The Street Registers maintained by the respondents also do not contain the streets in the layout as claimed by the petitioners. On enquiry, the 2nd respondent has found that the 4th respondent has purchased land in S.No.145/4 from one Annammal W/o. Kuppusamy Naicker. The said Kuppusamy Naicker is owner of the land in S.No.245/7. The land of the 4th respondent is distinct from the land in which the plots of the petitioners located. The layout sketch relied by t
