Property owners have a right to unobstructed access, and unauthorized parking violates this right.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2025

1^st and 2^nd petitioners are the owners of the building bearing Nos.659 and 667 of Ward No.10 of Palamel Village, and shop rooms are let out to petitioners 3 and 4 for running the business. Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the nuisance caused due to parking of the autorikshaws in front of the shop rooms of the petitioners without any permit or license from the authorities. To substantiate the grievance raised by the petitioners, they have produced Ext.P1 photograph showing the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioners’ shop rooms completely blocking the ingress and egress to the said building. Petitioners submit that there are sufficient parking space available in front of the public market which is hardly 25 metres west of the present parking. Thereupon Exts.P2 to P6 representations were filed before respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively, but till date no action has been taken in this regard. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. Ext.P1 photograph shows serious inconvenience and hardship caused to the petitioners due to the unauthorised parking of the autorickshaws in their building completely blocking the ingress and egress to the shop rooms. It is settled law that the autorickshaws and other vehicles cannot park in places which are not notified as parking place by the authorities concerned. This Court in M.V. Joseph v. District Magistrate [ 1996 KHC 346 ]

considered a similar issue and held as follows:-

“9. It is evident from the above mentioned authoritative principles laid down by Indian and English Courts, a person who is having business on the side of the national highway has got a right of access at every point. Just as the taxi owners have access at all points in the highway for passage in exercise of their occupation, trade or business, petitioner has got equally the same right for using the highway at all points in exercise of his avocation, trade or business.

10. But more than that, the owner on the side of the national highway has a private right of access as well, subject to the public right of passage which is a higher right to be enjoyed by public including the person like the petitioner. In other words, a private right of access to the highway may co-exist with a public right of way though it does not necessarily merge with the public right. Public right of passage is subject to private right of landowners' right to access to the highway. Where a foot-path intervenes between a highway and adjoining premises, the owner of the premises is entitled to access across the foot-path to the highway for any kind of traffic which is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of his premises. The interest of the public in a highway consists solely in the right of passage. Such right would include stopping perhaps for refreshments, enjoying the view, etc. But no highway user may use the highway for parking their vehicles permanently for their business so as to invade the private right of entry of a owner of adjoining land to the highway. For traffic regulation and for public purpose and for the safety of pedestrians it is open to the authorities to plant barriers separating the foot path and the highway, which may invade the private right of a person owning land abutting the highway. It may also possible for a statutory authority to erect obstruction in the highway such as electric posts, telephone posts, but shelter, etc., which may invade the private right land owners abutting the highway. The same is for public interest. But allowing taxi cars to park on the side of the highway obstructing the private right of landowners abutting the highway is not for a public purpose, but for the pri