Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R. Deivayanai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madras seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Thasildar, and Commissioner of Tiruttani Municipality to remove unauthorized constructions and encroachments allegedly made by the fourth and fifth respondents on a 20-feet public road in Old Survey Nos. 94/1A and 94/1B, New Survey Nos. 94/1A, 1A, in Sengunthar Nagar, Tiruttani Municipal limits, Tiruvallur District. The petitioner claimed to have purchased Plot No. 45 from the fourth respondent and alleged that the fourth and fifth respondents had encroached upon and made constructions on a public road adjacent to the plot. The Commissioner of Tiruttani Municipality was directed to file a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the Commissioner stated that as per the layout plan, the land over which encroachment was alleged is not a street but part of the patta lands of the layout developer, lying east of Plot No. 45 and retained by the developer. The affidavit further clarified that no structure existed on the land except a compound wall approximately six feet in height, which under the applicable Rules did not require any building permission as it did not exceed 2.4 metres. The core legal issue was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued for removal of encroachments on a public road when the municipal authority itself asserted that the land is private and no unauthorized construction existed. The petitioner argued that the fourth and fifth respondents had illegally encroached upon and constructed on a public road. The respondent authorities, through the counter affidavit, contended that the land is private patta land, not a public street, and the compound wall was permissible without permission. The court examined the layout plan and the counter affidavit, concluding that the private respondents had not encroached upon any public street or land. It held that no public duty was breached, and therefore a writ of mandamus could not lie. The court observed that if any dispute of civil nature exists between the private parties, they are at liberty to resolve the same by approaching the competent civil court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The decision primarily favored the respondents, upholding the municipality's findings and leaving civil remedies open to the parties.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Scope of Article 226 - The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to remove alleged unauthorized constructions and encroachments on a claimed 20-feet public road. The Commissioner's counter affidavit confirmed that as per the approved layout, the land in question is not a public street but part of the developer's patta land, and only a compound wall of permissible height existed, requiring no permission. Held that private respondents had not encroached upon any public street or land; if any civil dispute exists, parties are at liberty to approach the competent civil court. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct municipal authorities to remove alleged unauthorized construction and encroachment on a claimed public road when the municipality's counter affidavit states the land is private and not a public street, and there is no unauthorized construction.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the private respondents have not encroached upon public street or land. If any civil dispute exists between the private parties, they may approach the competent civil court.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus not maintainable for private civil disputes
- Disputed property is private land
- No actionable encroachment on public road
