Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited VS State Of Andhra Pradesh...
Checking relevance for SYED MAQBOOL ALI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH...
Checking relevance for Anamallai Club VS Government Of T. N. ...
Checking relevance for Government Of Kerala VS Joseph...
Checking relevance for MAKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES VS M. VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE...
Checking relevance for B. Gangadhar VS B. R. Rajalingam...
Checking relevance for Pandia Nadar VS State Of T. N. ...
Checking relevance for M. M. Shanmugam VS A. K. D. Kumar...
2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 678 : A person who owns property adjacent to a public road or government land has a private right of access to the highway or public street at any point where their land touches it, even if the soil of the highway is vested in another (such as a municipal corporation). This right of access is distinct from the public right to pass and repass along the highway. If this private right of access is obstructed by another person without lawful justification, it constitutes an actionable wrong, and the affected person may recover damages, including nominal damages, for the interference. The remedy lies in an action for damages, and the obstruction must be substantial enough to interfere with the private right of access. However, if the obstruction is authorized by statute, no action will lie unless compensation is provided by law.Checking relevance for Sankar Kumar Das VS Bikrom Singha Lahkar, Son of Sri Khagen Singha Lahkar...
2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1371 : A person who has a legal right to ingress and egress to his property, even if the land is government land, can seek legal remedy if such access is obstructed. Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly Section 39, a court may grant a temporary mandatory injunction to remove obstructions and restore access if the applicant establishes a prima facie case, proves that irreparable harm will occur without the injunction, and demonstrates that the balance of convenience favors the applicant. In this case, the trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction directing the removal of a boundary wall obstructing the respondent’s access to his property, recognizing that denial of ingress and egress caused serious injustice, inconvenience, and irreparable harm. The court emphasized that the respondent’s right to access his property, including through a right of way, is protected under equitable principles, and that the obstruction by a third party (the appellants) justified judicial intervention to prevent further harm pending final adjudication of title.Checking relevance for Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Namakkal VS Pappayee...
2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1387 : An owner of land adjoining a public street or government land has a private right of access to the highway at any point where his land actually touches it, even if the soil of the highway is vested in another (including the government). This right of access is distinct from the public right of passage and is a private right of property. If this private right of access is obstructed without lawful justification, it constitutes an actionable wrong, and the affected person may recover damages, including nominal damages, even without proof of special damage. The remedy for such obstruction includes an action for damages or a mandatory injunction to restore access. The court emphasized that interference with this private right of access is actionable, and the law protects the right of ingress and egress to one''''s property from a public or government-owned street.Checking relevance for K. Anil Kumar, S/o. Velayudhan VS State Of Kerala, The Secretary, Local Self Government Department...
2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 52 : The court recognized that respondents 3 to 5 had a legitimate right to use a remnant piece of triangular land for ingress and egress to their properties, as it was being used for that purpose and further widening of the road was not required. The court held that the sale of this land to the respondents would not cause inconvenience to the public and that the Corporation had followed due procedure and fixed appropriate value. This implies that a person using government land for ingress and egress to their property has a valid interest that can be protected, and if obstructed, the remedy lies in seeking legal recognition of such use, particularly when it serves a practical necessity and is not required for broader public purposes. The court''''s acceptance of the respondents'''' request to purchase the land confirms that such a right can be legally recognized and enforced through appropriate administrative and judicial processes.Checking relevance for Awadhesh Kumar Sharma VS State of U. P. ...
2023 0 Supreme(All) 1747 : The State Authorities are not obligated to provide ingress and egress over acquired land. However, if a person knowingly invests in land surrounded by acquired land, compensation may be awarded in the interest of justice. In such cases, the affected person''''s legal remedy is not to compel the State to provide access, but to seek compensation for the investment made in the land, which may be granted by the court as a matter of equity and justice.
