The Madurai Bench held that the petitioner's dispute over land title with his brother exceeds writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for title resolution.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.01.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.1508 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.1273 of 2016
V.C.Vaithyalingam
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Executive Officer, Sayalkudi Town Panchayat, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.K.Gopal ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 2 to forbear the respondent No.3 from putting up unauthorized construction in survey No.179/1B8 to an extent of 3.0 Ares situated at No.42, Sayalkudi Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For 1st Respondent : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Special Government Pleader. For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )
The petitioner has a dispute with regard to title to a small piece of land of an extent of about 1½ cents with his brother from whom the third respondent has purchased the property. Since it is a title dispute, the petitioner should actually go to the normal Civil Court.
2.Finding that going to the Civil Court is laborious and involves costs in the form of court fee, the petitioner has come https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ up with the above writ petition on the specious plea that without obtaining building plan approval the third respondent is trying to put up construction.
2
3.Private disputes cannot be camouflaged into such dispute. The petitioner can always move an interlocutory application with the same prayer with which he has come up with this writ petition in the civil suit to be instituted regarding title.
4.With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P(MD)No.1273 of 2016 is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Executive Officer, Sayalkudi Town Panchayat, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District. +1cc to Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Advocate Sr.No.4416 +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy,Advocate Sr.No.4611 +1cc to Spl.GOvernemnt Pleader Sr.No. 4533 sms AA/GSV-AN/08.02.2016/2p-6c
Writ Petition (MD) No.1508 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.1273 of 2016
25.01.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed as a quo warranto regarding unauthorized construction is maintainable when the matter is essentially a title dispute.
Whether private title disputes between family members should be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ jurisdiction.
V.C.Vaithyalingam
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram
The Executive Officer, Sayalkudi Town Panchayat
K.Gopal
V.Ramasubramanian
N.Kirubakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court