JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff, who had filed a suit in O.S.

No. 36 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Court, Gudalur, The Nilgiris, praying for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, who are forest officials restraining them from entering, trespassing or damaging the suit property of plaintiff by erecting juntas or any other wall constructions by ston, bricks or R.C.C. works (reinforced cement concrete) in front of eastern boundary side of suit property as described in the plaint schedule, an extent of 4.83 acres of land with four boundaries.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property in the year of 2009 and patta also stands in his name and he possessed and enjoyed the property from the eastern boundary side of suit property, there is average 120 meters open immediate vicinity to the Ooty-Mysore National Highway Road margin. In that open space, the plaintiff is using a mud road as a pathway for ingress and access to the suit property from the margin of National Highway road, but in the year of 2010, he was informed by the 2nd defendant that they are going to erect juntas across and in front of the eastern side of the suit property. If they closed the access on the eastern side of suit property, he will be put into much hardship and it is only immediate vicinity to Ooty-Mysore National Highway Road on the eastern side of the property for him. Hence, he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the District Collector of Nilgiris and other forest officials.

4. The written statement was filed by the 1st defendant and the same was adopted by 2nd defendant and as per their written objections, at no point of time, they have not disturbed the plaintiff's enjoyment of patta land an extent of 4.83 acres in Survey No. 825/2, but they denied the plaintiff's claim of right of pathway on the eastern boundary of the suit property to reach Ooty-Mysore National Highway Road. They would further submit that on the eastern boundary of suit property, there is 1.20 meter open immediate vicinity to Ooty-Mysore National Highway Road margin, which belongs to the Government comes under Mudumalai Tiger Reserve. They would also submit that as per the Reserve Forest Notification, the Ooty-Mysore Main Road, which enters the Reserve near Thorapalli and passes through the reserve to end at Kakkanalla, the State border and the said Road is permitted to use for public transport only. Therefore, the said road is in Reserve Forest Area and the plaintiff has no access from the main Road through Reserve Forest. Further, the original access to the suit property should be on the southern side, but the plaintiff made false allegations against the defendants and came forward with improper description of suit property. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Considering both side submissions, the trial court framed three issues and both parties adduced their evidence. On the side of plaintiff, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked and P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. On the side of defendants, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked and D.W.1 was examined.

6. On considering Ex.A6 and A7, the trial court held that mud pathway shown in the photos have been used by the plaintiff for ingress and egress from his property and also by relying the ratio laid down by this court in 1997 (2) CTC 461 holding that if a person owns a property adjoining a Highway belonging to the Government abutting the Highway road is entitled to have access to the Highway from each and every point of his property. Accordingly, the suit was partly decreed. Challenging the said findings, the Forest Officials preferred an appeal in A.S.No.2 of

2018 before the Sub-Court Gudalur, The Nilgiris.

7. The first appellate judge independently analysed all the facts and evidence and framed the foremost issue as to whether the vacant land existing between the eastern side of