W.P.(MD)No.16336 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 26.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

W.P(MD)No.16336 of 2022

and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11803 and 11804 of 2022

R.Sakthivel

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Corporation Commissioner,

Madurai Corporation,

Anna Maligai, Madurai.

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

Zone – 2, North Zone,

Madurai Corporation,

Madurai.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

records pertaining to the impugned order dated 12.06.2020 issued

by the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal and

consequently direct the respondents not to interfere the petitioner's

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in R.S.No.27/5

and U.D.R.S. No.27/5B.

For Petitioner

: Ms.S.Vanitha

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.16336 of 2022

For Respondents

: Mrs.S.Devasena

Standing Counsel

* * *

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the

order dated 12.06.2020, issued by the 1^st respondent and to direct

the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the property in R.S.No.27/5 and

U.D.R.S. No.27/5B.

2.

Heard Ms.S.Vanitha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Standing Counsel for the

second respondent. By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is

taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3.

From the affidavit filed in support of the writ

petition, it is seen that the petitioner has purchased two plots viz.,

plot Nos.29 and 30 in an unapproved layout and constructed a

building. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the property

under the sale deed dated 20.02.2020, which is registered as

document No.612 of 2020.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.16336 of 2022

4.

This Court perused the sale deed, which clearly

indicates that the petitioner has purchased two plots adjoining the

20 feet road. The layout plan also indicates that the property

purchased by the petitioner lies on the East of the 20 feet road.

Having purchased the property, adjacent to the road as formed in

the layout the petitioner has come forward to challenge the

impugned order passed by the first respondent, directing the

petitioner to remove the encroachment in the public road.

5.

The petitioner has put up a shed in the public road

and a gate in the 20 feet road, which is the road made for the public

to have access through it. It is the case of the petitioner that it is

under the enjoyment of the petitioner and one Sampath Kumar for

the past few years and the first respondent has issued the order

directing removal of encroachment without considering the fact

that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the road portion. The

petitioner also alleges that the persons from the respondents' office

came to his premises and removed the gate put up in the area and

directed the petitioner to remove the shed put up by the petitioner.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.16336 of 2022

6.

Having regard to the admitted facts and records,

this Court is unable to find any merit in the writ petition. The

petitioner, having purchased the property in an unapproved layout

cannot exercise any right over the 20 feet road, which is reserved

for the public, particularly the residents of the locality who have

purchased respective plots. The fact that the petitioner has

encroached by putting up a shed and gate exposes the petitioner's

assertion of the right, which is misconceived.

7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PT. Chet Ram

Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (1995) 1

SCC 47 and Division B