Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2777 (MAD)

K. Rajammal v. District Collector, Coimbatore

2022-08-17

N.ANAND VENKATESH

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from commencing or continuing the construction work of Rail Over bridge at (i.e. ROB at Km 1/2 of Ondipudur-SIHS Colony Road in lieu of existing L.C.No.4 at Railway Km 3/3-5 in between Irugur-Peelamedu Railway Station) before laying the service road for access to the petitioner's property situated at Door No.177 and 177-A of Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.6.2013. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to continue the construction of Rail Over Bridge before laying the service road at Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.6.2013 and 15.7.2013. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to defer the construction of road over bridge at Km 1/2 of Ondipudur - SIHS Colony road in lieu of the existing Level Crossing No.4 (L.C.No.4) at Railway Km 3/3.5 between Irugur - Peelamedu Railway stations till the formation of service road at “Aerodrome Road”, Singanallur, Coimbatore.) 1. These writ petitions were filed for a direction to the respondents to defer the construction of the road over bridge till the formation of a service road. 2. Heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs.V.Annalakshmi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. When these writ petitions came up for hearing on 23.09.2013, this Court passed the following order: The petitioners are aggrieved by the construction of road over bridge at km ½ of Ondipudur - SIHS colony Road, in lieu of the existing Level Crossing No.4 (L.C.No.4) at Railway Km 3/3.5 between Irugur - Peelamedu Railway Stations before the formation of service road at Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. 2. According to the petitioners, they have no proper access to their houses from the road on account of the ongoing construction, unmindful of the plight of local people. The local people have no access at all to enter their property. The petitioners, therefore, wanted the respondents to stop the construction work till providing service road. 3. The second respondent filed an undertaking affidavit on 22 August 2013. The local people have no access at all to enter their property. The petitioners, therefore, wanted the respondents to stop the construction work till providing service road. 3. The second respondent filed an undertaking affidavit on 22 August 2013. The affidavit reads thus:- a) The service road-with drainage will be provided at Aerodrome Road Singanallur, Coimbatore, after acquiring land under due process of Law. b) At the time of constructing the ROB, temporary access will be provided to all the dwellers including the petitioner and the construction will be carried out without any hindrance to their free ingress and egress. c) At the time of construction of the ROB, the petitioner will be provided free access to reach the alternate roads. At present, the heavy vehicles are plying on the road side of the railway track through the Neelinonampalayam Road. d) The lands required for the formation of service road will be acquired under due. process of law; e) The work of constructing the ROB will be carried out without disturbing the day to day activities of the general public including the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the undertaking was violated with impunity by constructing the over-bridge without giving free access to reach the road. 5. There is no dispute that the construction of road over bridge was undertaken by the Government in larger public interest. While constructing the over-bridge the difficulties of the local residents also should be looked into by the authorities. The acquisition process to form the service road is yet to begin. The second respondent has not come up with a clear picture with regard to the formation of service road. 6. The contention regarding denial of access is specifically disputed by the second respondent. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that a report should be obtained by issuing commission. 7.Thiru.Prakash Adiapadam, Advocate, No. 386, III Floor, New Law Chamber, High Court, Chennai, (Cell No.9600664167) is appointed a Advocate Commissioner to inspect the place in question and to report about the physical features of the construction area; the availability of road to enter the property of the petitioners, and all other features, which are necessary for adjudicating the lis involved in all these writ petitions. The Advocate Commissioner is further directed to prepare a plan of the construction site, indicating all the features. 8. The Advocate Commissioner is further directed to prepare a plan of the construction site, indicating all the features. 8. The petitioners are directed to pay an initial remuneration of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), to the Advocate Commissioner, besides the expenses. 4. By virtue of the above order, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he inspected the property and also filed a report before this Court. Pursuant to the same, the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.10.2013 and this Court passed the following order: Mr.G.Manuneethi, Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Coimbatore, filed an affidavit of undertaking that there would not be any further construction in the "O" portion up to P-6 and the work would be continued from column pier P-6 to the end of ROB Km of Ondipudur SIHS Colony. The Divisional Engineer further submitted that scaffolding now placed in the said area, more particularly at P-4 and p-5 would be removed within a period of ten days. The undertaking affidavit is recorded. 2.The Divisional Engineer is directed to adhere to the time schedule with respect to the removal of scaffolding. It is open to him to proceed beyond P-6, as indicated in the undertaking affidavit. 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the pendency of writ petitions should not stand in the way of acquiring the lands for providing approach road. It is made clear that the acquisition is not under challenge in the writ petitions and as such, it is open to the respondents to proceed further for providing service road. 4.It is open to the petitioners to approach the Divisional Engineer in case they experience difficulties with regard to access in spite of giving undertaking before this Court. 5. When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing today, it was brought to the notice of this Court that already steps have been taken to acquire the lands and whatever protection was given by this Court through the earlier order dated 11.10.2013, continues. 6. In view of the above development, no furthers orders are required to be passed in these writ petitions, since the Government has resorted to acquisition of lands. It is therefore clear that the Government wants to acquire the lands for providing the approach road. Under such circumstances, it should only be construed that the respondents are proceeding further in accordance with law. It is therefore clear that the Government wants to acquire the lands for providing the approach road. Under such circumstances, it should only be construed that the respondents are proceeding further in accordance with law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that acquisition was challenged by some of the owners. This Court does not want to go into that issue in these writ petitions and the same has to be considered independently only in those writ petitions challenging the acquisition. 7. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.