The court established that reasonable access rights must be preserved without undermining the distinct ownership of adjacent properties.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner owns an extent of land measuring 15.40 cents abutting Palakkad-Kozhikkode National Highway. The adjacent land on the western side of the land of the petitioner measuring 15.40 cents belongs to one Mullappally Shaji. The petitioner has constructed a three storeyed commercial building in the land owned by him. A similar building has been constructed by Mullappally Shaji also in his land. The vacant land on the western side of the building of the petitioner and the vacant land on the eastern side of the building of Mullappally Shaji were being used all along by the owners of the properties for car parking, after constructing a temporary roof over the same. It is stated by the petitioner that disputes arose of late, between him and the adjacent property owner in respect of the parking area and the same was resolved through mediation by the parties agreeing to put up a structure dividing the properties upto the boundary of the abutting National Highway. It is alleged by the petitioner that during the first week of April, 2021, the second respondent, a contractor engaged by the third respondent started erecting handrails on the boundary of the properties of the petitioner and Mullappally Shaji, treating the same as a single item. It is stated by the petitioner that the second respondent has informed the petitioner that they would leave only four meters space in front of the buildings for access to the buildings in the properties owned by the petitioner and Mullappally Shaji. The petitioner objected the proposal made by the third respondent on the ground that the properties involved being two distinct items, providing common access would affect ownership rights of the parties detrimentally. Ext.P2 is the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard before the third respondent. It is alleged by the petitioner that the second respondent has proceeded with the construction of the handrails ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed in the said background seeking directions to respondents 1 to 3 to provide a separate entrance to the commercial building of the petitioner.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent contending that the handrail/barricade is erected on either side of the National Highway for the safety of pedestrians including children; that there are so many commercial establishments on either side of the National Highway, especially within the limits of Mannarkad Town, within which the property of the petitioner is situated and that if access is provided separately to each commercial buildings, the very purpose of erecting the handrail/barricade would be defeated. It is also contended by the third respondent in the counter affidavit that the entry to the building of the petitioner will not be blocked on account of the construction of handrail/barricade and that an open space of 6.4 meters would be left in front of the lands owned by the petitioner and Mullappally Shaji. A sketch indicating the manner in which the handrail/barricade is proposed to be constructed has also been produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent.

4. The authority of the third respondent to erect handrails on the boundary of the property of the petitioner abutting the National Highway for the safety of the pedestrians, is not challenged by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is only that common access cannot be provided to distinct properties, as the same is likely to affect the ownership rights detrimentally. The fact that the petitioner is entitled to have a right of access to the property from the Highway is not disputed by the contesting respondents. Their case is only that separate access cannot be insisted by all the property owners on the side of the Highway, for, if separate access is