ORDER

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction against the third respondent/Municipal Commissioner, Sankarankovil Municipality, Tenkasi District to remove the illegal construction of compound wall in the entrance of the house of the petitioner, which, according the petitioner, is blocking the pathway to reach the main road. The petitioner had also given a representation dated 06.09.2021, in this regard.

2.In the affidavit filed, the petitioner A.Sesammal, residing at No.45, Vadakatchiamman Temple 2nd Street, Sankaranakovil, Tenkasi District, had stated that she had been residing in the said address for the past 50 years and her house entrance is in Thiruneelakandar Pond, which joints Tirunelveli main road.

3.It is claimed that there is a 20 feet drainage in between the entrance and the road. She obtained permission from the the third respondent in 1979 to construct cement foot pathway over the 20 feet drainage. She also put up the cement foot pathway.

4.She claimed in the affidavit that the third respondent had threatened to destroy the cement foot path. She filed O.S.No.350 of 2005, before the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil and the suit was decreed on 05.04.2006. Thereafter, again on 14.12.2015, the third respondent issued a notice to demolish the cement foot pathway. She filed a contempt petition in the suit and it is claimed that it is still pending. She claimed specifically that she has no other entrance to reach the road. She gave a representation on 06.09.2021 to the second respondent, who had forwarded the same to the third respondent. Since no action had been taken, the writ petition had been filed by her.

5.A counter affidavit had been filed by the third respondent, in which, they have specifically stated that the land comprised in T.S.No.291/1, which is abutting the said pathway claimed by the petitioner is Sarkar poramboke/Street. It is under the control of the third respondent. It has been stated that it is vacant land. It had been stated that the petitioner and an other neighbourer, Muthaih had constructed building over the said vacant land and used the same. It had been stated that possession had been taken with much difficulty.

6.It has been very specifically stated that the petitioner's house faces east and there is a door way to that particular connecting street and that is the address of the petitioner. The cement foot pathway claimed by the petitioner is on the back side of the house and there is no necessity for the petitioner to use that pathway. It had also been stated that the only intention of the petitioner is to grab the vacant land abutting the cement foot pathway.

7.It had been further stated in the counter affidavit that the third respondent had permitted the petitioner to put the cement foot path over the existing open drainage and they have very categorically stated that they have no intention of destroying or demolishing that particular cement foot path.

8.An additional counter affidavit had been filed by the third respondent in which they stated that they are proposing to construct six buildings in the vacant space and a resolution had also been passed in that regard. These are shops will be constructed without causing damage to the cement foot path.

9.It had been very categorically stated that except to put the cement pathway, no further permission had been granted to the petitioner to use the vacant land as an access pathway to her house. The actual entrance is on the eastern side. It had therefore been stated that the writ petition should be dismissed.

10.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.D.Selvanayagam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader for first and second respondents and Mr.P.Mahendran for the third respondent.

11.Mr.D.Selvanayagam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, took the Court through the facts of the case and stated that in the year 1979, on 30.04.1979, by proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.774/79, the third