A civil suit concerning a pathway does not preclude necessary public health actions regarding infrastructure maintenance, with cost responsibilities remaining with the applicant.

ORDER

Heard Mr.Ruban Chakaravarthy, for the petitioner, Ms.C.Meera Arumugam for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.N.Naveenkumar, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The petitioner purchased the property situated at No.73/1, Kalipalayam Main Street, Cholipalayam , Aval Poonthurai, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District. She has put up a residential construction therein. Her mother , namely Sampoornam passed away on 14.07.2024. Adjacent to the petitioner’s property, her uncle, one, Mr.A.Viswanathan is residing.

3. On account of certain disputes relating to a pathway between the petitioner and the said Mr.Viswanathan, a suit was presented in O.S.No.81 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode. The said suit has been transferred to the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Elumathur and renumbered as O.S.No.197 of 2024. The same is said to be pending. The said suit is confined only to the pathway between the petitioner’s property and that of the said Viswanathan. In front of the petitioner’s property, there runs a canal. On account of the dilapidated condition of the pipeline, seepage has occurred and water is stagnating in front of the petitioner’s property.

4. The petitioner approached the respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking permission, to lay a pipeline, so that water does not stagnate, in front of her house. As no action was forthcoming, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. When the matter was taken up, Mr.N.Naveenkumar produced the instructions given by the third respondent. According to him, the third respondent has refrained from proceeding further in view of the pendency of O.S.No.197 of 2024, referred to above. He further states that if the pipeline is to be laid, the cost has to be borne by the petitioner and not by the local body.

6. Mr.Ruban Chakaravarthy invites the attention of this Court to paragraph no.9 of the affidavit. It states that the petitioner agrees to bear the cost of laying the pipeline from the main pipeline to her property.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The only ground urged is that the old pipeline is dilapidated and has not been replaced during the pendency of the civil proceedings. The petitioner states that the civil suit relates only to the pathway dispute and has no bearing on the issue of seepage and stagnation of water caused due to the damaged pipeline. Continued stagnation of water may result in the spread of water-borne diseases, affecting both the petitioner and the neighbouring residents. At the same time, the third respondent cannot be called upon, to bear the cost of laying the new pipeline should rightly borne by the writ petitioner.

9. In view of the above, this writ petition is ordered in the following directions:-

i) The petitioner shall submit a fresh application to the first and second respondents, immediately, seeking permission to replace the pipeline.

ii) Upon receipt of such application, the third respondent shall ensure the appropriate permission from the Revenue Department as well as PWD is obtained to effect the replacement of pipeline. iii) The third respondent shall calculate the cost involved in replacing/laying the pipeline to address the seepage issue and intimate the same to the petitioner , within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s application.

iv) On receipt of the estimate given by the third respondent, the petitioner shall pay the same to the third respondent.

v) On such payment, the third respondent shall replace the dilapidated pipeline with a fresh one, and complete the work as expeditiously as possible.