Madras High Court dismisses plea to assign Kalakshetra Foundation a 1.46 acres of a public pathway near its campus

Madras High Court dismisses plea to assign Kalakshetra Foundation a 1.46-acre public pathway near its campus

The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by Kalakshetra Foundation seeking a direction to the State government to act upon a 2010 recommendation made by the Commissioner of Land Administration to assign to the institution around 1.46 acres of a public pathway that passes across the campus from east to west.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also refused to restrain the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) from laying a pucca road on the pathway for the benefit of the general public, particularly the 2,500 families residing in Thiruvanmiyur Kuppam, who could reach the market and bus terminus easily by traversing a short distance of 800 m if the road was laid.

On the other hand, the residents, including schoolchildren, would have to travel nearly 2.5 km if the government was forced to assign the existing public pathway to the foundation and accept the latter’s suggestion to use an alternative route between the Kuppam and the bus stand, the judge said.

“In a case of this nature, the court must always look into the interest of the public at large which will outweigh the so-called hardship that will be faced by the petitioner foundation,” the judge wrote and said the Chennai Collector as well as the Corporation Commissioner too were not in favour of assigning the pathway to the foundation.

The officials had come to a conclusion that the existing pathway would be more beneficial to the public, particularly the residents of Thiruvanmiyur Kuppam and the schoolchildren. They were also of the view that laying a pucca road would help in the Kuppam being easily accessible for ambulances during medical emergencies.

“In the light of the above discussion, this court does not find any apparent illegality or manifest arbitrariness in the decision taken by the respondents. In any case, the petitioner foundation cannot claim as a matter of right for conveying the property belong to the government and to accept the alternative proposal given by the petitioner foundation,” the judge concluded.