Arul M. Futnani Vs The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu District, The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chintadripet, Chennai, The Tahsildar and The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department

Hon''ble Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, Chief Justice and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.@mdashThis writ appeal is directed against the order dated 08.09.2011 passed in W.P. No. 7556 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein.

2. Orignally, the Appellant/writ Petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the Respondents from converting the cart track or handing over the same to the same to the 2nd Respondent - Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short "Metro Water") or changing the character or classification of the cart track measuring an extent of 0.16 hectares in S. No. 67 of Semmencherry Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, within the sub-Registration District of Neelankarai, Chennai. Later on an amendment petition was filed, which was allowed on 27.01.2011, whereby the Petitioner prayed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No. 219, Revenue (LD5/1) Department, dated 12.05.2010, quash the same, and forbear the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioner''s right to use the subject lands, morefully set out in the writ petition, as ingress and egress to his property.

3. The case of the Petitioner was that the impugned Government Order was passed without following the procedure contemplated u/s 125(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, that the land in question does not vest with the government, that the definition of the term "Public Road" as found in Section 2(28) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 includes a "Cart Track", that no Government Order was passed for re-classification of the Cart Track into any other usage, and that the impugned Government Order was illegal.

4. In the counter filed by the 1st Respondent - District Collector, Kancheepuram District it was stated that the Petitioner''s land is situated in S. Nos. 64, 65 and 66 of Semmencherry Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The Cart Track land is in S. No. 67, which is a government land. Since, the Metro Water applied for the alienation of the government land for its setting up of the Sewerage Pumping Station/Sewerage Treatment Plants along the IT Corridor, the 3rd Respondent - Tahsildar in his proposal to the Government sub-divided S. No. 67 as S. Nos. 67/1 and 67/2, and only 0.04.0 hectares were earmarked for alienation to the Metro Water for its intended use, and the remaining land in S. No. 67/1 to an extent of 0.12.0 hectares were left as Cart Track. The State Government issued the impugned Government Order approving the said proposal. The Petitioner''s ingress and egress to his lands are not affected.

5. In the counter filed by the 4th Respondent - Secretary to Government, Revenue Department it was stated that the land in question was identified in co-ordination with the revenue officials. On the request of the Metro Water to complete their project, the land in question was alienated to them by the impugned Government Order. Writ petition was filed based on the apprehension that there will be total block of Cart Track. Since, the left out portion can still be used as Cart Track for general public, including the Petitioner, the apprehension of the Petitioner is no longer valid. The Petitioner cannot claim the Government Poromboke land as a matter of right for his exclusive use. It is further stated that public objections were called for and no member of the public objected including the Village Administrative Officer of the said area.

6. The learned single Judge after hearing the counsel on either side dismissed the writ petition holding that the Petitioner''s right of ingress and egress is not affected in any manner, and all the formalities were duly observed before alienating the land in question to the Metro Water for its public use viz., construction of Sewerage Pumping Station/Sewerage Treatment Plants along the IT Corridor.

7. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant mainly contended that if the Respondents are allowed to set up the Sewerage Pumping Station/Sewerage Treatment Plant on the land in question, the ingress and egress to the Appellant''s land will be seriously affected. According to the learned senior counsel, the land in question, which is a cart track, has been used by the Appellant for ingress and egress to his house and such right cannot be taken away by transferring it for the purpose of setting up the Sewerage Pumping Station/Sewerage Treatment Plant. In this connection, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on an passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mecca Jumma Mosque v. The Director of Municipalities reported in 2001 (2) L.W. 817.

8. Indisputably, the land in question is a cart track as per the Revenue records comprised within Survey No. 67 of Semmencherry Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. For the purpose of construction of water supply head works and sewerage treatment plants for providing extensive water and sewerage system to suburban nodes along the I.T. Corridor, it was decided to permit the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board to use the portion of the land for setting up the sewerage pumping station/sewerage treatment plant. It has been categorically stated that even after giving the portion of the land, the remaining portion shall be used as cart track by the general public, including the Appellant. The learned single Judge considered all aspects of the matter and observed as under:

12. When asked as to how the writ petition is maintainable for canvassing the private interest of the Petitioner, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:

i) The judgment of the Supreme court in Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa and others, for contending that the residents of the locality are the persons intimately, vitally and adversely affected by any action taken by the State Agency and if the action taken by the State agency deprives them of facilities reserved for the enjoyment and protection, the residents of the locality are entitled to maintain the writ petition and they have locus standi.

ii) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal and Others, for contending that the orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea change with the development of the constitutional law in India. If a person approaching the Court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right, the petition filed by that person cannot be rejected.

iii) The decision of the Supreme Court in Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, for contending that if a statute prescribed norms to be followed, it has to be followed only in that fashion and if any violation in statutory rules is brought to the notice of the authorities and if the authorities do not perform the statutory duty, the aggrieved citizen can always bring it to the notice of the High Court.

iv) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, for contending that if any citizens'' right in any manner to carry on his business is infringed or there is a threat to his liberty, a petition is maintainable and access to justice is a human right.

v) On the merits of the case, he referred to the decision of this Court in K.V.K. Janardhanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, for contending that neither the Government nor the local body has got any right to put up any obstruction over a public street and the owner of the land adjoining the public street has got a right to access at every point where his her land adjoining the public street. In that case, it was held that putting up an iron fence between the land of the Petitioner and that of the suit cart track was illegal. But it must be noted that the said judgment arose out of a suit and in a CRP arising out of an order of the lower Court, these observations were made.

vi) The judgment of this Court in Mecca Jumma Mosque, rep. By its Assistant Imam, S. Mannan Ahmed Moideen v. The Director of Municipalities and Ors. reported in 2001 2 L.W. 817 for contending that the right of the public to pass along the highway, it was held that though Civil Court can decide such issues but when a Municipality was trying to do certain acts for which they are not legally entitled and if they take away the right of a citizen, the writ petition is maintainable.

vii) The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vengaivasal Village Panchayat Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, , wherein it was held that the public road within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, which vests with the Panchayat for maintenance and to deprive the Panchayat of the road, the procedure u/s 125(1) of the Act will have to be followed and the Government cannot ignore the Panchayat before divesting the Panchayat of the right to keep the street as illegal.

viii) An unreported decision of this Court in Leela Thomas v. The Executive Officer Ullagaram Puzhuthivakkam Municipality (W.P. No. 18327 of 2010) dated 07.01.2011, where the Respondents were directed not to put up any construction interfering the Petitioner''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house site.

9. In the case of Mecca Jumma Mosque, 2001 (2) L.W. 817 (supra), the fact was that the Municipality was taking emergent steps to construct shops on the western side of the compound wall of the mosque that is on Mettu Street. By reason of construction of the shops, the ingress and egress to the mosque was completely blocked. On these facts, the learned single Judge held that the right of the Muncipality is only subject to the right of the owners who are residing abutting the road. The Petitioner''s right to have access to the main road from its land cannot be taken away by constructing shops. In the case on hand, the facts are quite different. The existing cart track is for the use of the public at large and not exclusively for the writ Petitioner/Appellant. Even after construction of the sewerage pumping station, the remaining portion of the land shall be used as cart track, not by the Appellant alone, but by other persons residing in the said locality. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge rightly held that the Appellant cannot claim the right over the cart track exclusively for his personal use.

10. For the reason aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.