ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent herein, under which, he has directed the writ petitioner and one another person by name, Nadesan, to open up a pathway, to reach the graveyard, located in Survey Nos.799/16 and

799/20.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he is the owner of Survey No.797/2A1. The fifth respondent herein and some other persons started using his private property to reach the graveyard in Survey Nos.799/16 and 799/20. The adjacent owner by name, Nadesan, had already filed O.S.No.111 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Eranial and he has obtained a decree for permanent injunction as against three individuals, that they should not use his private patta land as a pathway to reach the graveyard.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of the insistence of the private respondents, a dispute arose and the private respondents approached the second respondent herein, seeking a right of pathway. The second respondent by way of the impugned order, dated 29.05.2013, after confirming that it is a private patta land has directed the parties to approach the civil Court for resolution of the dispute. Till civil Court decides the issue, the second respondent herein has directed the writ petitioner and the said Nadesan not to offer any resistance to the usage of their private patta land as a pathway to reach the graveyard. The second respondent has further directed the writ petitioner and the said Nadesan, not to block the pathway so as to reach the graveyard. He has further directed the complainants therein not to cause any disturbance while passing through the private patta land of the writ petitioner. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that, once, the second respondent arrives at a finding that it is the private patta land of the writ petitioner, he has no jurisdiction whatsoever to grant right of access to the complainants to reach the graveyard. He had further contended that as a owner of the property, he is entitled to fence the same. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that a civil suit in O.S.No.101 of 2013 has been filed by four persons representing four communities before the District Munsif Court, Eranial, for the relief of declaration that they have right of easement over plaint 'B' Schedule property for using the same as a pathway to reach plaint 'A'

Schedule property. The plaintiffs have also sought for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction, iron gate and blocked white fencing put up in the plaint 'B' Schedule property. The plaintiffs have further prayed for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction or obstruction in the plaint 'B' Schedule pathway. Pending suit, the plaintiffs therein had filed I.A.No.343 of 2013, seeking a relief of ad-interim mandatory injunction. The said application was dismissed on 17.07.2014 and the same has become final. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that once, the fifth respondent was not successful in getting an interim order from the civil Court, thereafter, the order passed by the second respondent cannot be implemented.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that, pending writ petition, out of the four communities, three communities have purchased properties for the purpose of creating a cremation ground in Survey Nos.1099/2, 1063/4B and 1060/12B. He further contended that a common burial ground has been made available by the concerned Panchayat in Survey No.1060/12A. When the fifth respondent and other community people have already purchased some private patta lands for the purpose of creating a graveyard, again the respondents cannot insist