Disputed facts involving civil rights and land encroachments must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

The petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Attur (Respondent No. 2), to consider a representation dated September 1, 2023, regarding the removal of alleged encroachments by private respondents (Respondents Nos. 3 and 4) on a cart track located in Survey Nos. 201/5, 202/1A, and 202/1B in Manchini Village, Salem.

Written instructions from the Tahsildar dated June 30, 2025, revealed discrepancies between the 'A' Register entries and the Field Measurement Book (FMB).

Specifically, while some records mentioned a pathway or cart track, the ground reality and FMB markings were inconsistent or lacked detail.

Furthermore, a civil suit (O.S. No. 204 of 2023) concerning the subject land had already been instituted by individuals claiming to be joint pattadars.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the removal of alleged encroachments when the underlying property rights and the existence of a public pathway are subject to disputed facts.

2. Whether a Writ of Mandamus is the appropriate remedy when a civil suit involving the same subject matter is pending before a competent Civil Court.

The Court applied the established principle that Writ Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not typically adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact or settle private civil rights, particularly when such matters require the appreciation of evidence.

The proper forum for the adjudication of title, possession, and civil rights regarding land is a competent Civil Court.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the necessity of impleading relevant statutory authorities in civil litigations involving public records to ensure an effective adjudication of the dispute.

The Court examined the Tahsildar's field inspection report, which highlighted significant factual ambiguities: S.No. 201/5 had no physical pathway despite 'A' Register remarks; S.No. 202/1A was a black-topped road in public use; and S.No. 202/1B lacked FMB markings for a cart track despite register entries.

The Court reasoned that since the status of the land and the rights of joint pattadars were contested, these constituted "disputed facts relating to civil rights".

It observed that such complexities cannot be resolved in a summary writ proceeding.

Given that O.S. No. 204 of 2023 was already pending, the Court determined that the parties must seek a resolution through that suit rather than through a Mandamus.

The Court granted liberty to the parties to raise all relevant grounds before the competent Civil Court of Law.

Additionally, the Court directed the parties to the civil suit to implead the Revenue Authorities to ensure an effective and final adjudication of the matter.

No costs were awarded.