SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The Pentecostal Mission, Represented by its Pastor G. Maneshe – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Director General of Police, Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP No. 39838 of 2005 & WPMP No. 42720 of 2005 & WVMP No. 1558 of 2006
Decided On : 10-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, S. Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader, R4, No Appearance, R5, M.S. Palanisamy, Advocate, R6 to R9, Not Ready in Notice.

The power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot be used to determine civil rights related to immovable property, and the petitioner must establish title and ownership through the competent civil court.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Possession of Land - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Title and Ownership - Government Land - Dismissal of Writ Petition

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with their possession of a specific land and building. The court found that the relief sought could not be considered without the petitioner establishing their title/ownership of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot be used to determine civil rights related to immovable property. It directed the petitioner to establish their title and ownership through the competent civil court.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's claim of possession and the court's jurisdiction to grant the requested relief without establishing title/ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner must establish their title and ownership through the competent civil court, and the respondents were directed to verify the land's status and initiate appropriate action.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents and their men from in any manner interfering with the petitioner''s peaceful possession, enjoyment and occupation of the land and building comprised in S.Nos.180/5, 180/3A8B, 5A2 Injambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and bearing Door No.80B, near Hotel Thanjavur Veg., East Coast Road, Chennai-600 041.)

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the respondents and their men from in any manner interfering with the petitioner''s peaceful possession, enjoyment and occupation of the land and building comprised in S.Nos.180/5, 180/3A8B, 5A2 Injambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and bearing Door No.80B, near Hotel Thanjavur Veg., East Coast Road, Chennai-600 041.

2. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition cannot be considered in view of the fact that the petitioner has to establish his title/ownership in respect of the subject property.

3. The power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be expanded for the purpose of crystallisation of the civil rights regarding the immovable property.

4. The petitioner states that he is in possession of the vacant land, which was purchased in the year 1975. If so, the petitioner has to establish his title by approaching the Competent Civil Court of Law.

5. The respondents are bound to ascertain as to whether the land belongs to the Government or Poramboke land or otherwise. If the petitioner is in occupation of the Government Poramboke land or otherwise, the respondents are bound to initiate action to evict the encroachers from the said land in the interest of pubic and by following the procedures contemplated under the Land Encroachment Act.

6. Thus the respondents are directed to verify the revenue records and find out whether the land, which is in possession of the petitioner, is a Government land or otherwise and initiate appropriate action. If at all the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property, then he has to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of establishing his title and ownership.

7. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top