A Government-land encroacher cannot restrain lawful removal absent title or other lawful right.

The petitioner sought certiorari and consequential relief under Article 226 to quash the Tahsildar’s proceedings dated 6 December 2024 and prevent removal of an asbestos-sheet shed from Government poramboke land stated in the prayer to be New Survey No. 47/2, Old Survey No. 147/6.

The petitioner contended that the land was classified under the Highways Department and that revenue officials, rather than that Department, were proceeding against her.

The State submitted that the Taluk Office had surveyed the property and identified an encroachment, while removal would be undertaken by the competent Highways Authority.

The Court recorded that the petitioner was not the owner, was occupying Government poramboke land classified under the Highways Department, and had been called upon to remove the encroachment.

The judgment’s account of the petitioner’s submission refers to Survey No. 48, whereas the prayer identifies different survey numbers.

1. Whether the petitioner, having no title or lawful right over the Government poramboke land, could restrain the authorities from proceeding against the alleged encroachment

2. Whether the fact that the land was classified under the Highways Department, while the survey and proceedings involved the revenue authorities, rendered the impugned proceedings unsustainable

It applied the principle that a person without title or other lawful right over Government land cannot claim a right to remain in occupation or prevent the competent authority from proceeding against an encroachment.

Any removal must be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The petition invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the petitioner was not the owner and had no established lawful right to occupy the Government poramboke land; the Taluk Office’s survey had identified an encroachment, and the petitioner had been called upon to remove it.

The Court held that the allocation of responsibility between the revenue officials, who conducted the survey, and the Highways Authority, which would carry out removal, did not confer a right on the petitioner to continue in occupation.

It therefore found no basis to quash the proceedings or restrain action, while requiring any removal to be carried out in accordance with law.

It held that, if the petitioner failed to remove the encroachment, the competent Highways Authority was at liberty to remove it in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.