Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The contention of the respondents on the other hand was that there was a four feet width pathway earlier, and after Raghavan had purchased the property, the pathway was widened by utilizing the land bought by him. They would also say that since the building permit was granted by the Corporation after hearing both sides, unless the proceedings of the Corporation are challenged, the suit cannot succeed. They would also point out that the Corporation is not made a party.

9. It is true that the petitioner before this court was unable to produce any document maintained by the local authority, which would show that plaint B schedule is a public way. In fact the Corporation also did not claim that they had any documents to that effect. But the fact remains that at the time of inspection of the commissioner, one of the residents of the Colony represented to the Commissioner  that there was a four feet width pathway earlier, which was later widened. Moreover, from Ext.B1 file it is seen that it was after hearing both sides that the permit was granted. True, both the courts below have found that there is nothing to show that plaint B schedule is a public pathway which has vested with the local authority. So also the fact that it connects two public roads may not by itself is not a ground to hold that it is a public way vested with the local authority. But, there is some material to show that it has been used by the public, and B schedule connects two main roads. It is to be noticed that neither of the courts below have referred to Ext.B1 at all. It is true that Ext.B1 is not conclusive. But there is prima facie material to show that it was after having heard both sides permit was granted. Whether permit could be challenged in a suit is a different matter. At any rate, no complaint is seen made in the plaint regarding the permit granted to the builder.