The right of access to a public road is available from every point of the plaintiff's house facing the public road, and any obstruction to this right, whether caused by structures on the public road or on the roadside patri, is actionable.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants second appeal which has been admitted solely for the consideration of the following question which has been formulated by the Honble Judge :"as to whether on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants were having their shops either, permanent or moveable and were doing business on the Patri of the road for the last more than twenty years, a decree could be passed merely on the ground that the plaintiff had a right of frontgage of his premises without determining the reasonable extent of the frontage. "

( 2 ) FOR the decision of this question facts may be briefly stated thus : A suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for a mandatory injunction seeking the removal of certain structures said to have been unlawfully constructed by the defendants over a piece of land marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H stated to constitute the frontage of the plaintiffs house. The allegation was that the structures had the effect of obstructing the access of plaintiff to a public road which lies in front of the plaintiffs house with a roadside patri intervening. The plaint case was that the plaintiff had an undoubted right of frontage to enable him to have access to the public road which access stands denied to him in consequence of the tinshed and other structures constructed by the defendant on the patri which indisputably vests in the Public Works Department.

( 3 ) THE defendants filed separate written statements but the substance of their defence was that the plaintiff had no concern with the land over which the structures complained of are standing. Pleas of limitation and estoppel were also raised by them.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed, two of which need be mentioned as the same have relevance for the decision of the question posed by the learned Judge admitting the appeal. These are issues Nos. 1 and 5 and the same read as follows "1. Whether the defendants have a right to fix tin-shed etc. in the suit land? Whether the disputed constructions are liable to be removed?"

( 5 ) BOTH the courts below have on a careful and exhaustive consideration of the evidence existing on the record came to the concurrent conclusion that the disputed structures lie over the Public Works Departments patri. It is apparent that the defendant can have no right or claim to make any permanent structure over the land vesting in the P. W. D. There is, therefore, no difficulty in accepting this finding of the courts below on issue No. 1 which is in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

( 6 ) AS regards issue No. 5, the lower appellate court has after surveying the relevant judicial pronouncements on the nature and extent of the right claimed by the plaintiff held that as the structures complained of by the plaintiff have the effect of infringing the right of frontage vesting in the plaintiff in the sense that they deprived him of the right of access of the public road, the same are liable to be removed.

( 7 ) IT is not necessary to refer to all the decisions that have been dealt with by the lower appellate court on the subject beyond mentioning one case reported in 1973 All LJ 271 , Shankar Dayal Agarwala v. State of U. P. in which case an English decision was cited by the learned Judge reported in (1876) 46 LJ Ch 68 Lyon v. Wardens of Fishmongers CHL wherein Lord Selborne stated the law thus : "these authorities recognised such a right of immediate access from private property to public highway as a private right distinct from the rights of the owner of that property to use the highway itself as one of the public. " at another place the learned Judge of this Court made the following significant observations in paragraph 6 of the judgment : "i am slow to accept the proposition that a public or a local body or other authority can with impunity raise a structure right in front of a persons house which abuts on a public thoroughfare and thereby com