Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, joint owners of a business premises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the Greater Chennai Corporation and its officials from laying a storm water drainage system on their property, described in the writ petition schedule, and further to direct the respondents to close the deep and large pit dug on the land. The petitioners contended that they had purchased the land to an extent of 2756 sq.ft. in S.No.99/2C, Vadaperumbakkam Village, along with two other properties totalling 11,242.5 sq. ft., and that the respondents were encroaching upon their private patta land for the drainage construction, instead of removing encroachments by influential individuals on the opposite side of the road. They produced a sale deed and filed an affidavit in support of their claim. The Corporation, through its standing counsel, opposed the petition, stating that the area in question was a road margin and not private land, and that the drainage was being constructed within the road margin. The Corporation submitted a photograph to establish that the petitioners had encroached upon the road margin, prompting the present writ petition. The core legal issue was whether a disputed question of title could be entertained in writ jurisdiction. The High Court observed that disputed issues relating to title cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding, as title disputes require conducting a trial before a competent civil court of law. The Court noted that mere production of a sale deed or filing an affidavit is insufficient to resolve a title dispute in summary writ jurisdiction, and that the court cannot conduct a roving inquiry or verify the genuineness of photocopied documents. The Court reiterated that conversion of a civil dispute or a dispute relating to title and securing relief under Article 226 is impermissible, and such writ petitions are not entertainable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court to establish their title. The judgment favored the respondents, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Title - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioners alleged that the Corporation encroached on their private patta land for drainage construction; the Corporation countered that it is road margin and submitted a photograph showing petitioners encroached on road margin. The High Court held that disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and must be determined by a competent civil court by conducting a trial. The petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil court (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained to restrain the Corporation from constructing a storm water drainage system on land claimed by petitioners as their private property, when the Corporation claims it is road margin
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court held that disputed issues relating to title cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and the petitioners were at liberty to approach the competent civil court to establish their title.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to adjudicate title disputes
- such disputes must be resolved by the competent civil court
- a writ petition for mandamus is not entertainable when there is a disputed question of title
