Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, S. Krishnamurthy and D. S. Subramaniam, filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 23.09.2021 issued by the Assistant Director/P.A. to the District Collector, Erode. The order directed the Revenue Tahsildar to take over 29 coconut trees and one teakwood tree situated in S.No.555/1, which the respondents classified as canal promboke (government land adjacent to a canal). The petitioners contended that the canal adjacent to their land was only 4 meters wide, but during a survey pursuant to W.P.No.8668 of 2021, a larger width was assigned, erroneously including their trees within the canal promboke. They argued that the trees were actually on their patta land and relied on a proceeding of the District Revenue Officer dated 20.09.2019. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, opposed the petition, submitting that the impugned order was an inter-departmental communication that did not create a cause of action for a writ petition. They further argued that the dispute involved questions of fact regarding land classification, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The court, after considering submissions, held that the impugned order was merely an internal communication between government departments and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioners' claim that the trees were on their patta land raised disputed questions of fact, which must be resolved by a civil court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate remedies. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Writ Law - Maintainability - Inter-Departmental Communication - The impugned order dated 23.09.2021 was an internal communication between government departments directing takeover of trees on canal promboke land, which does not give rise to a cause of action for a writ petition. Held that such communications are not amenable to writ jurisdiction (Paras 1-6). B) Land Law - Canal Promboke - Disputed Facts - The petitioners claimed that the trees were on their patta land, while the respondents asserted they were on canal promboke based on revenue records. Held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and must be resolved by a civil court (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an inter-departmental communication directing takeover of trees on canal promboke land can be challenged in a writ petition, and whether disputed facts regarding land classification can be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate remedies. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Law Points
- Writ petition not maintainable against inter-departmental communication
- Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction
- Canal promboke classification based on revenue records
