Disputed questions of title and possession cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 23 cents on the eastern side of a 46-cent parcel in Survey No. 147/3A, Thachakudi Village, under a sale deed dated 7 September 2020.

He alleged that the eighth respondent, Mangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, had constructed a Fair Price Shop on that land without his consent.

After submitting a representation on 10 June 2024 seeking removal of the construction, he filed this writ petition under Article 226 for a direction to remove it.

The Society disputed the petitioner’s claim, and the official respondents submitted that the dispute concerned title and possession and should be pursued before the competent Civil Court.

Whether the alleged unauthorised construction and the parties’ competing claims to the land could be determined in a writ petition under Article 226 where title, ownership and possession were disputed.

Whether the petitioner should be left to pursue his remedy before the competent Civil Court.

Article 226 provides the High Court with writ jurisdiction, but disputed questions of fact concerning title, ownership and possession that cannot be effectively adjudicated in writ proceedings are not to be determined in such proceedings.

The party asserting those claims may pursue the appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court.

The petitioner’s request for removal of the Fair Price Shop depended on establishing that the land was his and that the Society’s construction was unauthorised.

Because the Society disputed his claim, resolution required determination of contested questions concerning title, ownership and possession.

The Court held that those questions could not be effectively decided in the writ proceeding and therefore declined to order removal of the construction.

It disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, and directed that the Civil Court decide the matter independently and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

No costs were ordered; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.