A disputed UDR entry cannot be conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings.

The petitioner sought to quash the District Collector’s order dated 11 July 2023, which closed proceedings concerning alleged encroachment on T.S. Nos. 1041 and 1004, and sought removal of the construction.

He contended that T.S. No. 1041 was recorded as a pathway/road and that the Tahsildar had ordered removal of the encroachment; the Collector instead relied on an alleged error in the UDR entry and the pendency of civil proceedings.

The respondents maintained that the UDR classification might be erroneous and that the issue could be taken to the competent revenue authority. They also referred to O.S. No. 292 of 2022, which had been dismissed after the plaintiff’s death without substitution of legal representatives, and stated that steps had been taken to bring them on record and seek restoration.

Whether the District Collector’s decision to close the proceedings, relying on an alleged error in the UDR entry and the civil proceedings, could be sustained.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing removal of the alleged encroachment at that stage.

The Court proceeded under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It recognised that a dispute about the correctness of a UDR entry could be brought before the competent District Revenue Officer under the applicable procedure; the respondents identified G.O. (Ms.) No. 385, dated 17 August 2024, as governing UDR correction.

Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act was mentioned in the procedural history as the provision under which an appeal to the District Collector had been permitted.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out a broader statutory test.

Although T.S. No. 1041 was recorded as a pathway or road, the respondents disputed the correctness of that entry and asserted that it had resulted from an error during UDR updating.

Because the accuracy of the revenue entry could not be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings, and civil proceedings concerning the property were also stated to be ongoing or subject to restoration, the Court declined to decide title or classification.

It therefore directed neither correction of the entry nor removal of the alleged encroachment, leaving those matters to the appropriate forums.

It granted the private respondents/legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent liberty to apply to the competent District Revenue Officer for correction of the UDR entry, with a direction that any such application be considered independently after hearing all concerned parties.

The Court expressed no opinion on title or classification and left the petitioner at liberty to pursue remedies before the competent Civil Court.

No costs were ordered.