A private party cannot obstruct established access rights; a writ of mandamus to compel action against obstruction is warranted.

ORAL ORDER

In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of mandamus against respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2024 vide Annexure-J and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remove obstruction caused by respondent No.3 in enabling the petitioner to have access through the existing road formed by the private respondents.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no contest by respondent No.3, who is served and unrepresented.

3. The petitioner traces his title through the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 8378/2011. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that his vendor was one of the plaintiffs in the said suit, which was a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit culminated in a judgment and decree dated 01.12.2015, whereby the plaintiffs were declared entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule property. Significantly, the sale deed dated 20.03.2006 executed by the defendants therein was held not binding on the plaintiffs' 1/8th undivided share. In order to appreciate the foundation of the petitioner’s title, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant operative portion of the judgment rendered in O.S.No. 8378/2011.

"Suit filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 8 is hereby decreed with cost.

Plaintiffs are entitled to one-eight share each in the suit schedule property.

It is declared the sale deed dated

13.08.2003 executed by the General Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 by name Chinnappa in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of the suit schedule property, is not binding on the plaintiffs.

It is declared the sale deed dated

20.03.2006 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 in respect of the suit schedule property, is not binding on the plaintiffs.

Draw preliminary decree accordingly.".

4. Based on the preliminary decree passed in O.S.

No. 8378/2011, the petitioner's vendors initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No. 136/2017. In the said final decree proceedings, the portion of land corresponding to their share was specifically allotted to the petitioner's vendors, who thereafter executed a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2023 in favour of the petitioner. A copy of the said sale deed is produced at Annexure-A. The petitioner has now approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who have failed to consider and act upon the representation submitted by the petitioner.

5. On perusal of the photographs produced at Annexure-H1, it is evident that the petitioner's vendors, being daughters, had instituted a suit for partition, which culminated in a decree allotting their rightful share. Pursuant to the final decree proceedings in FDP No.136/2017, the allotted portion was carved out and subsequently conveyed to the petitioner. The photographs at Annexure-H1 further reveal that the portion allotted to the petitioner is now surrounded by the layout formed by private respondent No.3. It is particularly noteworthy that the road laid by respondent No.3 on either side terminates at the petitioner’s property. Shockingly, respondent No.3 has obstructed the road abutting the petitioner’s property, thereby denying continuity of access. While the petitioner must also ensure that a proper road alignment is maintained through his land, given the continuity and width of the road on either side, respondent No.3 cannot unilaterally block or obstruct the access road.

6. It is also observed that the surrounding land has been developed after obtaining conversion orders. However, the layout doe