WP/42481/2026 of V.ARUNKUMAR Vs The District collector on 16 October 2026

Order

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur dated 06.02.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the settlement deed executed between the fourth respondent and her husband Rajkumar would show that the Government assigned 1.75 cents for dwelling purpose. However, the fourth respondent has encroached upon the Government land, thereby causing obstruction to the pathway adjacent to the building constructed by the petitioner.

3. Disputed facts relating to extent of assignment actually made by the revenue authorities in favour of the 4th respondent's husband is to be ascertained by conducting an enquiry and verifying the revenue records. High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry on such disputed facts, which requires scrutiny of documents in original and evidences. The petitioner raises a doubt regarding the extent of assignment made in favour of the husband of the fourth respondent for construction of a dwelling house.

4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted a survey and based on the survey report and after verification of the revenue records, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the parties. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to prefer a revision before the District Collector, Tiruppur within a period of 30 days. Instead, the present writ petition is filed.

5. This Court is of the considered view that adjudication of factual disputes by the original authority / appellate / revisional authority are of paramount importance. Such adjudications will be done based on the documents and evidences available on record. Thus, the factual findings of the original authority as well as appellate / revisional authority would be of greater assistance to the High Court for exercise of powers of judicial review in an effective manner. Instead, the High Court cannot adjudicate the disputed facts in a writ proceedings.

6. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the process through which a decision has been taken by the competent authority in consonance with the Statutes and Rules in force, but not the decision itself. The arms of powers of judicial review if extended by adjudicating disputed facts, there is a likelihood of causing prejudice to any one of the parties or may lead to miscarriage of justice. This exactly is the reason why the Constitutional Courts time and again reiterate that disputed facts of civil nature are to be adjudicated by the authorities and a person claiming title or ownership of any civil right has to approach the competent civil court. Rising practice of conducting civil disputes before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at no circumstances be encouraged by the High Court. Such orders are causing infringement of civil rights of other persons who are all not before the Court or claiming right over the same properties. Therefore, High Court is expected to exercise restraint in entertaining such writ petitions claiming civil rights.

7. In the present case, the order impugned itself states that the petitioner may prefer a revision before the District Collector. Exhausting the alternate remedy is relevant in the present case since the petitioner raises a factual dispute. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a revision before the competent revisional authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of filing of such revision, the revisional authority, without reference to the limitation, shall entertain the same, adjudicate the revision petition on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible.

8. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (B.K.,J.) 16-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST

To

1. The District collector Tiruppur District Collectorate Karuppa Gaundanpalayam Tiruppur District.

2. The Revenue Divisional officer Tiruppur Division 185, Tirppur Road Kannipiran colony, Valipalayam Tiruppur

3. The Tahsildar Palladam Taluk Pollachi Udumalpet Rd, Palladam

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND B.KARTHIKEYAN J. KST WP No. 42481 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 47739 OF 2026 16-10-2026