Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Temporary vs. Permanent Construction - Several judgments distinguish between temporary structures permitted for facilitating access and permanent constructions that amount to waste or encroachment. For instance, ["Chidambaram vs Aayiravalliammal Rep.by her Power of Attorney Agent S.R.Shanmuganathan - Madras"] notes that the High Court has not specifically mentioned that the defendants should only put up temporary structure for covering of the common pathway, and the decree only permitted temporary structures to prevent rain and shine, not permanent ones. Similarly, ["P. K. Wariyar VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] emphasizes that construction contemplated by S.231, is of a temporary character, such as scaffolding or barricades, and putting up any permanent or semi-permanent...construction is not allowed. ["RAMASAMY GOUNDER (DIED) vs RAJAJI VEETTAR - Madras"] and ["V. L. Venkatachalam VS V. L. Muthuswamy - Madras"] uniformly state that defendants should not put up any permanent or semi-permanent or temporary structures on the pathway, underscoring that the permitted structures are only temporary in nature and do not amount to a change in the status of the pathway.
Right of Access and Non-creation of Permanent Structures - Judgments consistently affirm that the right to access a pathway is a non-permanent, easementary right that does not include the right to erect permanent constructions. ["A. Subbraya Gounder VS K. Ponnusamy - Madras"] clarifies that the respondents' right was only to access, and they were not given any right to lay pipelines or permanent structures. ["Sherif Vincent S/o. Vincent vs M.C. Stephen S/o. Cheeku - Kerala"] notes that the use was temporary and non-binding and that the easement was only by grant, not prescription, indicating no intent for permanent rights. ["DR. M. DILIPAN vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - Madras"] states that a sale deed clearly specifies the pathway leading to his purchased site and that he cannot create a new access route over government land without prior permission, reinforcing the temporary nature of access rights.
Implication of Judgments - The judgments collectively establish that structures or modifications made temporarily for access purposes do not transform the pathway into a permanent construction or easement. For example, ["P. K. Wariyar VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] and ["RAMASAMY GOUNDER (DIED) vs RAJAJI VEETTAR - Madras"] emphasize that the construction is of a temporary character, and ["RAMASAMY GOUNDER (DIED) vs RAJAJI VEETTAR - Madras"] explicitly states that the defendants should also not put up any semblance of construction over that passage. These rulings uphold that temporary access facilitation does not amount to permanent construction, and any permanent structures require separate legal process and permissions.
Summary:Courts have consistently held that temporary structures or modifications made solely to facilitate access do not constitute permanent construction or change the nature of the pathway into a permanent easement. Such structures are permissible only as temporary measures, and erecting permanent constructions without proper authorization can be deemed waste or encroachment. This principle is supported by multiple judgments, including ["Chidambaram vs Aayiravalliammal Rep.by her Power of Attorney Agent S.R.Shanmuganathan - Madras"], ["P. K. Wariyar VS State of Kerala - Kerala"], ["RAMASAMY GOUNDER (DIED) vs RAJAJI VEETTAR - Madras"], and ["V. L. Venkatachalam VS V. L. Muthuswamy - Madras"].
In property disputes, the line between temporary access solutions and permanent structures often blurs, leading to legal battles over demolition and rights. Homeowners, developers, and local authorities frequently grapple with questions like: Find judgments where it is observed that temporary pathway to facilitate access does not amount to permanent construction. This is a critical issue in land access, public pathways, and easement rights under Indian law.
This blog post dives into relevant court rulings, analyzing how temporary pathways—built to provide essential access—are typically distinguished from permanent constructions. We'll draw from key precedents to highlight legal principles, implications, and practical takeaways. Note: This is general information based on judicial observations and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Courts in India consistently differentiate between temporary and permanent structures, especially on public drains, pathways, or highways. A core principle is that structures designated as temporary do not acquire permanent status merely due to prolonged existence or initial permission. Instead, their classification depends on factual inspection, construction nature, and legal compliance. [
#TemporaryStructures #PropertyLawIndia #CourtJudgments
However, laying of pipeline underneath the said pathway would not facilitate right of access to the respondents. It is clearly a different right, even without laying any water pipeline in the said pathway the respondents are entitled to use the same as access to reach their land. ... When respondents are conferred with easementary right of access under parent documents namely Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, in case of any obstruction to their access the respondents....
It is also to be noted that the High Court has not specifically mentioned that the defendants should only put up temporary structure for covering of the common pathway. There is no prohibition in the decree for putting up any permanent structure covering the pathway. ... The High Court has also specifically directed the defendants not to put up any construction in the suit pathway. Therefore, it is clear that the defendants were only permitted to put....
This foresight ensured that the use was temporary and non-binding and that his successor would not be burdened by a permanent easement. ... The first appellate court on the construction of Ext.A2 concluded that, Ext.A2 confers only an easement by grant and not prescription. ... They were also restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs to access the property through B schedule pathway including vehicular access. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred AS ....
Surveying the authorities on the subject and approving the decision in Sundaram Iyer's case, the Supreme Court observed: ... "The municipality cannot put up any structures on the public pathway which are not necessary for the maintenance or user of it as a pathway. ... pathway". ... Besides, construction contemplated by S.231, is of a'temporary' character. Putting up a scaffolding for repairing street lamps, or electric or telephone lines or putting of temporary barri....
and pathway existing in the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, the defendant has no other access to her land. ... It is observed that from the cross-examination of PW1 and DW1, it was clear that there exists a roadway and pathway within the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, and PW1 has admitted that the defendant has no other access to her property described in written statement 'X' schedule property. ... It is observed by this Court that the plaintiff has not rai....
The plaintiffs having miserably failed to prove the existence of the pathway, I do not find any error in the judgement of the trial Court, as well as, the lower appellate Court. ... However, the 2nd defendant started putting up construction over his land and thereby, encroached upon the 10 feet access road. ... He pointed out that he had put up the construction within his property after obtaining prior sanction from the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation. He pointed out that after his ....
of pedestrians on the pathway, over which a portion of the construction is being put up. ... of permanent structure in the form of Commemorative Arch along with the main arterial road may not be in order and also the judgements relied on by the learned counsel appearing for and vice versa is a private right. ... Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 speaks about only a temporary structure and what is sought to be p style="position
The defendants should also not put up any semblance of construction over that passage or even any permanent or semi-permanent or temporary thatched or otherwise construction. ... waste or should not put up any temporary or permanent structure on the pathway and at the same time should not also prevent the plaintiff from using it. ... The plaintiff had filed the suit only for permanent#HL....
The defendants should also not put up any semblance of construction over that passage or even any permanent or semi-permanent or temporary thatched or otherwise construction. 17. ... waste or should not put up any temporary or permanent structure on the pathway and at the same time should not also prevent the plaintiff from using it. ... The plaintiff had filed the suit only for permanen....
In order to facilitate the 'Vavubali Pooja' by the local people on the Karikkathi beach, a temporary path was provided from the temple premises to the beach. Other than this temporary path, no other way is in existence. ... The petitioners are attempting to get free road access to their resort through the harbour project area. ... Accordingly, land for the project, including B schedule, was acquired and leased to the 2nd respondent for construction and management of the harbour for a fixed period. #HL_S....
He would be deemed to be in temporary service only. Even where a temporary post is made permanent, the same by itself does not render the employment permanent and, thus, temporary employee continues to remain on temporary service. [See Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,1 [AIR 1995 SC 962]. Until a declaration is made under the relevant rules, he cannot be deemed to be in a quasi permanent service or absorbed permanently in Government service.
If the petitioners make a fresh application for temporary or permanent construction on their properties, for the reason that there is no provision for access such applications are not to be rejected.
From this, it is clear that the property conveyed under Ex.A.1, situates on the east of "vendors common pathway". It does not convey the right of access or passage in that pathway. The plaintiff now claims the right of passage in that pathway. For that, it should be proved by evidence that the plaintiff prescribed easementary right.
The nature of constructions, whether they are permanent or temporary, is a relevant consideration in determining the question of `material alteration. "the High Court observed that the fact that a construction is permanent or temporary in nature does not affect the question as to whether the constructions materially alter the accommodation or not. However, the said Full Bench authority has been over-ruled by the Honble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Amar Singh, AIR 1987 SC Page 617 and it has been held in para-9 that: -
Amarpali does not claim to have erected any permanent structure and the defendant even if accepted to be a licensee occupying the flat as husband of Amarpali has miserably failed to show that any construction was made by him which can be said to be a permanent character. Mere raising a wall does not amount to making permanent construction. More over this was not a construction to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was inside the flat and as already pointed out, plaintiffs who spent for renovation and furnishing of the flat would not allow the defendant to erect a wall.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
