Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohammed Beevi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 (Collector, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer, President of Panchayat, and Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways) to remove the alleged encroachments by respondents 6 to 13 on the Puduchaitram-Parangipettai National Highway Road (NH-47) bearing R.S.No.78 and the road leading to Kothattai Village bearing R.S.No.80 in Ariyakoshti Revenue Village, C.Pudupettai Panchayat, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District. The petitioner claimed that the respondents 6 to 13 had encroached upon the road and were causing obstruction to the public. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Kurinjipadi filed a status report stating that the representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2025 was considered and an inspection was conducted. However, the respondents 6 to 13 appeared and claimed title and possession over the property, asserting that they were in possession for a long time. The Court noted that the respondents 6 to 13 had filed a counter affidavit claiming title and possession, and that the petitioner had not produced any document to establish that the property is a road or that the respondents are encroachers. The Court held that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226, and the petitioner must approach the civil court for appropriate remedy. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration and possession, and directed that if such a suit is filed, the civil court shall consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ of Mandamus - Disputed Questions of Title - The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declined to entertain a writ petition seeking removal of encroachments on a national highway, as the respondents claimed title and possession, raising disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner must approach the civil court for appropriate remedy. (Paras 3-5) B) Property Law - Encroachment - Title Dispute - Alternative Remedy - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Where the respondents assert ownership and possession of the property, the dispute regarding title and possession must be resolved by a civil court, and a writ of mandamus is not the appropriate remedy. The Court directed the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration and possession. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct removal of alleged encroachments on a national highway when the respondents claim title and possession over the property, raising disputed questions of fact.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate remedy, including filing a suit for declaration and possession. The civil court was directed to consider the suit on its own merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus not maintainable when disputed questions of title and possession exist
- Alternative remedy of civil suit available
- High Court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate title disputes
