Carpenter May Seek Relief From Competent Bench Against Structure-Removal Order After Division Bench Directed Its Implementation: Madras HC

The petitioner challenged the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 6 July 2024, passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing removal of a temporary structure from disputed land in Survey No. 50/4B1A.

The petitioner claimed that the land was private patta land, disputed the asserted existence of a common pathway, and relied on a Tahsildar’s report stating that no encroachment had been made.

Respondent 5 had previously filed W.P. (MD) No. 16578 of 2025 seeking implementation of the 2024 order; the Division Bench disposed of that petition on 1 October 2026, expressly directing implementation of that order.

The petitioner then challenged the original order in the present writ petition.

Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers an Executive Magistrate to act in disputes concerning land, water or boundaries that are likely to cause a breach of the peace; the State relied on this provision as the basis for the impugned proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that it could not sit in appeal over, review or modify a Division Bench’s decision, particularly where that decision expressly directed implementation of the very order challenged.

A party aggrieved by that decision must seek review or other appropriate relief before the competent forum.

Although the petitioner disputed the pathway claim and relied on the revenue report concerning the private character of the land, the Court considered that the Division Bench had already directed implementation of the impugned order.

Quashing that order in the present proceedings would effectively nullify the Division Bench’s direction, which the Court could not do.

The petitioner’s challenge to the underlying order therefore could not be determined in a way that displaced the prior decision; any grievance regarding that decision had to be pursued before the competent forum.

It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Bench for review or other appropriate relief and disposed of the writ petition.