Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction over private title and encroachment disputes; parties must approach civil courts.

The petitioner claimed ownership over 15.50 decimals of raiyati land situated at Mouza Purana Bada Gamharia, Thana No. 66, Khata No. 363 (Old)/649 (New), Plot No. 2945 (Old)/2604 (New), relying on her registered sale deed, mutation order, Register-II entries and Land Possession Certificate.

She alleged that Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, private companies and their officers, had encroached upon and were utilising part of the land, demolished the boundary wall and iron gate, and dumped fly ash thereon.

The petitioner instituted Misc. Case No. 01/2025–26 before the Additional Deputy Collector, seeking eviction of the private respondents, restoration of possession, demarcation and removal of the alleged encroachment.

In the writ petition, she sought a direction for expeditious disposal of that proceeding, demarcation and removal of the encroachment, or, alternatively, compensation.

During the hearing, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition; however, the Court declined to permit withdrawal after examining the jurisdiction of the Additional Deputy Collector.

1. Whether the Additional Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner’s alleged private dispute concerning encroachment, possession and restoration of land against private companies?

2. Whether the Additional Deputy Collector could determine the petitioner’s right, title and interest in the disputed property?

3. Whether the revenue authorities could undertake demarcation of privately claimed land at the request of one private party in a dispute involving other private parties?

4. Whether the petitioner was required to pursue her remedies before a competent Civil Court rather than before the revenue authorities?

The Court applied the jurisdictional principle that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate private disputes involving competing claims of title, possession and encroachment, nor can they grant a declaration of right, title and interest.

Where the alleged encroachment is by private parties and the relief sought involves eviction, restoration of possession or determination of ownership, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.

The Court further held that State revenue authorities cannot act as parties to a private dispute or demarcate land claimed by one private person against another private person in such circumstances.

The Court treated the petitioner’s application before the Additional Deputy Collector as substantially seeking adjudication of a private property dispute involving title, possession, encroachment and eviction of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

Even assuming that the petitioner’s land had been encroached upon, the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the petitioner and the private companies or to order restoration of possession.

The Court also found that the petitioner’s pleadings effectively sought a declaration of her right, title and interest, a relief beyond the authority of the Additional Deputy Collector.

Since demarcation in the circumstances would require the State authorities to intervene in a private dispute, that relief was likewise impermissible before the revenue forum.

Accordingly, the Additional Deputy Collector had exceeded jurisdiction, and the initiation of Misc. Case No. 01/2025–26 itself was held to be legally unsustainable.

The proceeding before the Additional Deputy Collector was held to be bad in law, and no direction for its disposal could be issued.

The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief.