ORDER :

Prayer: These Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 01.11.2013 under his Proceedings No. SA/W372/WAYLEAVE and quash the same as ultra virus, void, illegal and consequently directing the respondents to provide way to the petitioners under the light of easement right of the petitioners over the land in T.S. No. 103/2, to reach their properties.

1. W.P. (MD) No. 13383 of 2015 has been filed by one Nagendrakrishnan and W.P. (MD) No. 13382 of 2015 has been filed by his daughters.

2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the same impugned order passed by the first respondent herein under which he has rejected the request of the petitioners for way leave for passage through approach road of the railway which leads to the main road.

3. The petitioners have contended that their grandfather namely Thiru. Ramdas was the owner of T.S. Nos.103 and 107 having an extent of 43,717 sq. ft. Out of the said extent of the land, an extent of 33,602 sq. ft. (77 cents) were acquired by the Southern Railway in the year 1984 for the purpose of formation of Karur-Dindigul Board-Guage Railway line. After acquisition, T.S. No. 103 was sub-divided into many sub-divisions. Out of which T.S. Nos. 103/1 and 103/3 remained the private properties of the petitioners’ grandfather. The portion of the property that was acquired by the railways was classified as T.S. No. 103/2.

4. The petitioners have further contended that a road has been laid in T.S. No. 103/2 which connects the parking area of the railway station with main road. The petitioners have further contended that T.S. No. 103/1 is located on the western side of the road and T.S. No. 103/3 is located on the eastern side of the road. In other words, the road intercepts the private properties of the petitioners. The petitioners have further submitted that a portion of T.S. Nos. 103 and 107 are being utilised by the railways as parking area.

5. The petitioners have further stated that they have to reach the main road only by entering into T.S. No. 103/2. They have no other access to reach the main road. They have been enjoying the road access through T.S. No. 103/2 from the year 1984 onwards. Suddenly, in the year 2011 when the petitioners father was away from the town, the railways have constructed a parapet wall obstructing the access of the petitioners into their private properties which is located on both sides of the road. After construction of the said parapet wall, the petitioners have lost all their access to their private properties in T.S. Nos. 103/1 and T.S. No. 103/3.

6. The petitioners have further contended that their father has sent several representations to various authorities for opening up an access into the road so that the petitioners would reach the main road. One such representation was addressed to the fourth respondent herein on 11.02.2013. In turn, the fourth respondent has forwarded the complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur had directed the Tahsildhar to inspect the property and file a report in respect of the physical feature of the properties. The sixth respondent had submitted a report on 03.09.2013 to the fifth respondent herein to the effect that the petitioners do not have any other access other than the road in T.S. No. 103/2 and he has also recommended for 10 feet pathway for the petitioners. Based upon the said report, the fifth respondent has addressed a communication to the first respondent herein requesting him to provide a 10 feet pathway for the writ petitioners. The said request has been rejected by the first respondent under the impugned order dated 01.11.2013. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners’ grandfather was the owner of the entire extent of T.S. No. 103. In the