Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R.Selvi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 30.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Aathur. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order and to direct the respondents not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of a property measuring Ac 0.2 cents in Plot No. 68 in a layout situated in S. No. 16/13, 16/4, 28/1 and 28/2A of Mettudaiyanpalayam Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District. The petitioner claimed that the land was already given to her. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was identified as an encroacher on land acquired for the benefit of Adi-Dravidars. The court noted that a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued to the petitioner, and after affording an opportunity, a final notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 and that such issues must be decided by the competent authority based on original documents and evidence. Since an appeal is contemplated under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Where a notice under Section 7 and final notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were issued and an appeal is contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable - Held that the petitioner must approach the appellate authority for effective adjudication of disputed issues (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act when disputed facts exist and an alternative remedy of appeal is available
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226
- Remedy of appeal under Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction
