The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking removal of encroachment on a private cultivable land. It held that the Civil Court, not the Writ Court, has jurisdiction for encroachment on private land since the petitioner has alternative access to his fields.
The petitioner suffered to remove the encroachment on private land.
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.
W.P. No.3728 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.P. No.3728 of 2019 & W.M.P. No.15526 of 2019
M. Shanmugasundaram
Petitioner v
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made in S.No.118/1, R. Ponnapuram Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
For petitioner Mr. C. Prakasam For respondents Mr. A. Selvendran Special Government Pleader
1/4
W.P. No.3728 of 2019
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred seeking a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to remove the encroachment made in S.No.118/1, R. Ponnapuram
Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
2 Concededly, the land in question is a “natham” vacant land. That apart, it has been brought to our notice that the petitioner has got an alternative way to go to the land meant for cultivation. If the petitioner has got any grievance qua removal of encroachment as sought by him, the remedy lies only before the Civil Court. Be it noted, if there is any encroachment or illegal construction in the Government land by a private party, a writ petition will lie. On the contrary, if there is any encroachment or illegal construction in a private land, then, the party seeking removal of such encroachment or illegal construction will have to move only the Civil Court and cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court as an alternative remedy.
3 It is worth pointing out that in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it has been stated as under:
“4. ..... Also, the Special Officer-cum-Block Development Officer of R. Ponnapuram of Pollachi North Panchayat Union has passed a resolution in the Grama Sabha meeting to regularise the encroachments made in Natham S.F. No.118/1 and issue house site pattas to them vide resolution no.9/2019 dated 26.01.2019. Even though the petitioner and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4
W.P. No.3728 of 2019
other farmers is having an access to reach their agricultural fields in northern side of the proposed land, they are using this natham vacant place having a width of 15 feet to reach the petitioner and other farmers comprised in Survey Nos.26,30/1 and 31/2 after we regularise the encroachments by issuing HSD patta. The proposal is not yet finalised on till date.
5 It is submitted that the encroachment by constructing thatched houses are by houseless poor people and the petitioner is having alternate access to reach their agri fields. Since the Natham vacant land is being and unobjectionable poramboke land and as per the order of the Government vide G.O. Ms.No.496, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 24.12.2018, the above encroachment have to be regularised by way of issuing pattas to them. After the regularisation of the encroachments made in S.F. No.118/1, the writ petitioner's right over the pathway in Natham S.F.No.118/1 will not be disturbed while the issuance of HSD pattas by way of regularisation. Further, the encroachment are not at all hindrance to the petitioner to reach their and other farmers agri fields because the existing width of the pathway is 15 feet. The petitioner is having two access to their agri fields. Since the encroach natham land is being unobjectionable, the respondents have considered the encroachmens based on the Government Order only While the petitioner and other farmers is having a sufficient pathway, there is no need to evict the encroachment as requested by the petitioner and further it is submitted that when we evict the encroachment made by the houseless poor people, it will put irreparable loss to their livelihood.”
In view of the above, the mandamus, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be
granted and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment, he has to work out his remedy only before the Civil Court. No costs. Connected impleading petition is closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 11.07.2023
cad
3/4
W.P. No.3728 of 2019
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
To
W.P. No.3728 of 2019
11.07.2023
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court has jurisdiction to direct removal of encroachment on private agricultural land when civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy via the civil court for grievances regarding encroachment on his land.
Whether regularization of encroachments on vacant land hinders the petitioner's right of way to agricultural fields.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Shanmugasundaram
The District Collector Coimbatore
The District Revenue Officer Coimbatore
The Sub Collector Pollachi
The Tahsildar Pollachi
S. Vaidyanathan
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
