Municipal authorities cannot adjudicate land ownership disputes, which must be pursued before civil courts.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 7 was undertaking unauthorised construction on land claimed by the petitioner. He submitted complaints to the municipal authority on 25 May and 5 June 2026, seeking that the construction be stopped.

The municipal authority reported that its officials had inspected the site and stopped construction in May 2026; it had also rejected respondent No. 7’s application for a building plan on 24 July 2026. The petitioner nevertheless relied on photographs which, he said, showed that construction was continuing.

He sought, among other reliefs, directions for consideration of his complaints, inspection of the site, and action against any unauthorised construction.

1. Whether a further mandamus was warranted directing the authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s complaints and to inspect or take action concerning the alleged unauthorised construction

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim that respondent No. 7 was constructing on land owned by him could be determined in these writ proceedings

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that mandamus is not warranted where the relevant authorities have already considered the complaint and taken a decision.

It also held that a dispute over ownership of land is not for the municipal authorities to determine and must be pursued before the competent Civil Court.

The Court considered the municipal authority’s report, which recorded that officials had visited the site and stopped the construction, and the endorsement rejecting respondent No. 7’s building-plan application. It concluded that the authorities had taken a decision on the petitioner’s representations, leaving no basis for a further direction on those complaints.

As to the allegation that construction was occurring on the petitioner’s land, the Court held that the issue concerned ownership and could not be resolved in the writ proceedings or by respondents Nos. 1–6; the petitioner’s remedy was to approach the Civil Court.

It left the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the competent Civil Court on the land-ownership grievance and disposed of the writ petition with those observations.