V.S.Jothi Lakshmi, v. The Principal Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 4028 of 2020 and WMP.No.4759 of 2020 V.S.Jothi Lakshmi, W/o. K.Sundaresan, F-22, E-Block, 180, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600004.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.
2. The Deputy General Manager, NABARD, No. 48, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Subba Road Avenue, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 034.
3. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
4. The Commissioner, St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, Chitlapakkam, Pozhichallur, Chennai 600074.
5. M/s. S.P.L. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., No. 15, Kasthurirangan Road, Kasthuri Estate, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018.
..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the construction of the High Level Bridge across
Adayar River in Gerugambakkam Panchayat, Kundrathur Block in Kancheepuram District, as per the order pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 112 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS1) Department dated 23.09.2016, on the file of the 1st respondent herein, without making any provision. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Subbiah for P.Raja For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.Prabakaran (R1 to R4) Government Counsel Mr.R.Saravana Kumar (R5)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the construction of the High Level Bridge across Adayar River in Gerugambakkam Panchayat, Kundrathur Block in Kancheepuram District, as per the order pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 112 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS1) Department dated 23.09.2016, on the file of the 1st respondent herein, without making any provision.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land. The said land forms part of the approved layout formed by the predecessors in title of the petitioner with her promoter, and the approval has been granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority by their Planning permission through their letter dated 09.09.2012. The entire layout, originally secured by the owner of the land by raising compound wall on all the
four sides and the Plot No. III belonged to the petitioner. 2.1. As per the layout the right of entry for ingress and egress, only from the main road and there is no other entry point to the plot owned by the petitioner, other than from the main road. The protective compound wall lying in between the main road and the plot of the petitioner has to be removed, at the time of construction of the residential house in the said plot and the petitioner has retained the compound wall, for security purposes. Even as the layout, there is no other entry point to the plot no.3 owned by the petitioner except through and from the said main road. The respondents 1, 2 and 5 had started constructions for building a bridge across the Adyar River and for the construction of the over bridge, the men of the 5th respondent had removed the boundary stone of the land of the petitioner and already they damaged the compound wall of Plot No.IV, where the owner of the said land is constructing the residential house.
2.2. If the plot owners owners on all sides within the layout raise the construction, the petitioner would have no legal right to enter upon their property to have access to her plot No.III. The petitioner is the lawful owner of Plot No.III in the approved layout is entitled to have entrance, and to have access to the main road from one point to other point, whereas, the constructions were started very close to the boundary line of the land of the petitioner. If the bridge is constructed, with the approach road, by fully
covering the entire 30 feet main road, the petitioner will have no access to all to her property, from the main road. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. When this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the construction of the flyover by the respondents 1, 2 and 5 was completed if the petitioner is unable to use the subject land and therefore a direction may be issued to the respondents to take appropriate action with regard to the acquisition of the subject land.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to file appropriate application before the appropriate Court seeking for compensation or damages..
5. In view of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the appropriate court. seeking compensation, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order arr
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.
2. The Deputy General Manager, NABARD, No. 48, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Subba Road Avenue, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034
3. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4. The Commissioner, St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, Chitlapakkam, Pozhichallur, Chennai 600074
5. M/s. S.P.L. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., No. 15, Kasthurirangan Road, Kasthuri Estate, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
arr W.P No. 4028 of 2020 04-06-2026