Disputed questions of property character and title require civil adjudication, not Article 226 review.

The petitioner claimed that Survey No. 100/42 in Mukkudi Village was a pathway leading to his ancestral properties and had been encroached upon by the fifth respondent.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, after an enquiry, allowed the petitioner’s representation and directed removal of the alleged encroachment; the fifth respondent appealed, and the District Revenue Officer partly allowed that appeal by order dated 10 April 2024.

The petitioner challenged the District Revenue Officer’s order and sought removal of the alleged encroachment.

The official respondents maintained that the land was Government Sarkar Manai, had been assigned to the fifth respondent in 2017, and was not proved to be a pathway.

Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, should interfere with the District Revenue Officer’s order where the parties dispute the land’s classification, whether it is a pathway, and the validity of the assignment and patta.

Whether the petitioner’s claims concerning the nature of the land and the parties’ rights should instead be pursued before a competent Civil Court.

Article 226 of the Constitution confers writ jurisdiction, but disputed questions of fact and title that require examination of revenue records and other documentary or oral evidence cannot be effectively adjudicated in writ proceedings.

The Court may decline writ relief in such circumstances while leaving the parties’ substantive claims open for determination by a competent Civil Court.

The competing claims raised factual disputes about whether Survey No. 100/42 was a pathway or Government Sarkar Manai land, and about the assignment and subsequent patta in favour of the fifth respondent.

Resolving those matters would require scrutiny of revenue records and other evidence, which the Court considered unsuitable for determination under Article 226.

It therefore declined to review the impugned order on the merits and left the parties’ contentions open for civil adjudication.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ claims, left all contentions open, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.