A. Malaiyandi v. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District & Others
2009-11-25
M.JAICHANDREN
body2009
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering in the petitioners agricultural land, comprised in S.No.135/9 of Kumulur Village, of Karur Panchayat, on the guise of laying a new cross road. 2. The petitioner has stated that the agricultural land in S.No.135/9, of Kumulur Village, of Karur Panchayat, belongs to him. He has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land for many years, by building a house therein. While so, the respondents herein are attempting to disturb the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, by extending the width of the road. 3. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, reads as follows: "6. With regard to the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the averments put forth in this para is not correct. There is no proposal for the formation of Road by the Government in S.F.No.135/9 owned by the petitioner. It is submitted that the adjoining land S.F.No.135/8 measuring an extent of 0.03.5 hectares stands registered in the name of K.Sonaimuthu vide patta No.349. There is a "Detailed Cart Track" running in S.F.No.135/8. It has been marked in F.M.B. This "Detailed Cart Track" is in existence for the past 30 years. The cart track is a mud road. The petitioner has filed the writ petition on presumption that the Government may extend the breadth of the road. If the breadth of the road is extended, the petitioner would be affected. It is submitted that there is no proposal for the formation of road in S.F.No.135/9. The petitioner is objecting the usage of "Detailed Cart Track" in S.F.No.135/8. As stated by the petitioner, the third respondent has not illegally taken any steps to enter into the patta land of the petitioner in S.F.No.135/9 for the formation of the road." 4. In view of the averments made in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit stating that the respondents have no proposal to extend the width of the road, since no further orders are necessary in the present Writ Petition, the Writ Petition stands closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.