Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Respondents 3 to 5 have filed a detailed counter affidavit, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. According to the said respondents, in Ext.P4 judgment, it is categorically held that the pathway should have a width of 12 links and the said pathway should be aligned in such a way to minimize the inconvenience, if any, experienced by the respondents in the enjoyment of the adjacent property. Even from Ext.P2 report and sketch, it is clear that the pathway was lying along the southern and eastern boundary of the property of the said respondents. However, the contention of the said respondents was that the pathway is having only width of 6 links, and it is a private pathway. But, it was held that the width of the pathway should be 12 links, and there is no finding or direction that the lie and position of the pathway should be changed.

12. So also, in the final order passed by the 1st respondent, the direction is to get the width of the existing pathway extended to 12 links from 6 links. Therefore, it is clear that the existing pathway was directed to be widened and not a creation of a new pathway. In Ext.P10 order also, there is no other finding or direction and the petitioners were granted one month's time to comply with the direction issued by the 1st respondent.

13. The 1st respondent issued Ext.R3(a) memo dated 23.07.2014, directing the respondents to comply with Ext.P10 order within 30 days. Accordingly, the respondents complied with the order by increasing the width of the pathway to 12 links in the presence of the petitioners and respondents 1 and

17. It is an undisputed fact that, thereafter, respondents 3 to 5 have extended the width to 12 links and the same is being enjoyed by the petitioners also. However, a contention is raised by the petitioners in this writ petition, that the 12 links pathway provided is not through the way as it originally stood, and therefore, petitioners are entitled to get Ext.P10 order executed through the original alignment. In my considered opinion, when there is a clear observation made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, providing flexibility to respondents 3 to 5 to put the 12 links width pathway through a convenient alignment and the way was provided by respondents at a width of 12 links, now the petitioners cannot turn around and contend that they should be provided with a way through the original alignment.

18. Moreover, the said respondents have a clear contention that the pathway originally had a width of 6 links only and consequent to the directions, the width had to be extended to 12 links, that there is no change of alignment and whatever change that has occurred, is due to the change of the width of the pathway. Moreover, from Ext.R3(c), I am convinced that the way was provided at the width of 12 links in the presence of the petitioners. There is no challenge against Ext.R3(c) proceedings dated 22.11.2014, and it has become conclusive.