Madras High Court Directs Completion of Road Work in Public Pathway. Court Orders Road Work to Proceed in Survey No.63/3, Clarifying No Obstruction from Adjacent Land.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Madurai
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Govindaraj K., seeking a mandamus against the respondents to complete road work in a public pathway located in Survey No.63/3, Arasathoor Village, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner contended that the road work was obstructed by the 5th respondent, who occupied adjacent land in Survey No.63/4 and had previously filed a suit regarding the matter, which was dismissed for default. The court noted that the road work was to be conducted solely on the land in Survey No.63/3, thus the 5th respondent's obstruction was unwarranted. The Additional Government Pleader confirmed that the work would not affect the 5th respondent's land. The court ordered the respondents to proceed with the road work and complete it within two months from the receipt of the order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Direction for Completion of Road Work - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought a mandamus for the completion of road work in a public pathway, which was obstructed by the 5th respondent. The court clarified that the road work should proceed in S.No.63/3 and directed its completion within two months. Held that the respondents must comply with the order (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to complete the road work in the public pathway situated in Survey No.63/3.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the respondents to complete the road work in Survey No.63/3 within two months from the receipt of the order.

Law Points

  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Road Work Completion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (09) 28

WP(MD) No.26763 of 2023

2026-09-03

C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Sakthivel

2026:MHC:3676

Mr.T.Veerakumar, Mr.S.I.Muthiah, Mr.P.Chellapandian

Govindaraj K.

District Collector, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer, President of Village Panchayat, Marimuthu

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking mandamus for road work completion.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to complete road work.

Filing Reason

Obstruction of road work by the 5th respondent.

Previous Decisions

Suit filed by the 5th respondent was dismissed for default.

Issues

Whether the respondents should be directed to complete the road work in the public pathway situated in Survey No.63/3.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for completion of road work obstructed by the 5th respondent. Respondents clarified that work would only occur in Survey No.63/3.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the necessity of completing public infrastructure work and clarified the legal boundaries regarding land use.

Judgment Excerpts

The writ petition had been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking a mandamus against the respondents 1 to 4 to complete the road work in a public pathway in S.No.63/3. The learned Additional Government Pleader clarifies that the road is being laid only in the land in S.No.63/3 and not in S.No.63/4.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed, affidavit submitted, clarification by Additional Government Pleader, court order issued.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Multiple Murder Case — Reassessment of Evidence Justified. Citing the necessity for thorough evaluation in appeals against acquittal, the court confirmed the High Court's authority to overturn the trial court's d...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Central Excise Duty Case — Exemption Notification Upheld. The Tribunal's finding that the emergence of by-products does not negate the entitlement to exemption under notification no.217/86 was upheld.