Municipal Law – Layout – Boundaries – Patta certificate showing road on two sides – Municipality alleging encroachment – Photographs filed showing plot abutting two roads and no encroachment – Authorities cannot disturb construction without adhering to procedure.

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Mandamus – Municipal interference with construction – Petitioner allotted house-site patta under “Lands for the Landless Poor Scheme” – Application submitted for construction permission – Municipality interfering and threatening demolition – Survey report confirming genuineness of patta and petitioner’s possession – Confusion relating to Plot No.19 boundaries – Direction issued restraining interference without following due process.

Municipal Law – Layout – Boundaries – Patta certificate showing road on two sides – Municipality alleging encroachment – Photographs filed showing plot abutting two roads and no encroachment – Authorities cannot disturb construction without adhering to procedure.

Administrative Law – Due process – Municipal authorities restrained from obstructing or demolishing petitioner’s construction except in accordance with law – Writ petition disposed of.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

1. Nature of the Proceedings

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Nagari Municipality and State authorities, challenging their interference with her construction over a house-site patta land.

The core complaint:
Authorities were obstructing construction despite the petitioner having a valid patta, having applied for building permission, and having paid property tax.

The relief sought was protective—requesting the Court to restrain the respondents from disturbing the ongoing construction.

2. Material Facts Established

(a) Allotment of land

• Petitioner received a house-site patta on 27.12.2020 (Patta No. CTR02092054).

• The allotment was under the Lands for the Landless Poor Scheme.

(b) Property taxation

• The petitioner’s property was assessed to tax by the Municipality.

• She has been regularly paying property tax to the 2nd respondent.

(c) Construction commencement and intimation

• On 15.07.2024, the petitioner sent an application for construction permission through registered post.

• Municipality personnel allegedly visited the site and threatened demolition of both the existing and proposed structure.

(d) Survey findings

• The 3rd respondent (Tahsildar) conducted a survey.

• The survey confirmed:

  1. The patta is genuine.

  2. The petitioner is in possession of the land allotted to her.

(e) Point of confusion

• Authorities stated that Plot No. 19 in the layout appears bounded by roads.

• There was confusion whether the petitioner’s construction was on the road or merely adjacent to two roads.

(f) Evidence placed by petitioner

• Photographs were filed to show:

  • No construction was on the road.

  • The plot merely abutted the roads, consistent with the patta boundaries.

3. Issues Considered by the Court

Issue 1:

Whether municipal authorities can interfere with the petitioner’s construction despite the existence of a valid patta and her application for construction permission.

Issue 2:

Whether the alleged boundary confusion regarding Plot No. 19 justifies the Municipality’s threats of demolition.

Issue 3:

Whether the authorities had adhered to due process of law before attempting to restrain or demolish construction.

4. Reasoning of the Court

(a) Petitioner’s right fortified by documents

The Court relied heavily on:

• The genuineness of the patta.

• The confirmed possession.

• The evidence that the layout itself showed roads on two sides of the plot.

(b) Boundary confusion does not justify arbitrary action

Even if there was some confusion regarding Plot No. 19’s exact boundaries, the Court held:

• The Municipality cannot unilaterally threaten demolition.

• Procedural safeguards must be followed.

(c) Photographs consistent with patta boundaries

The Court accepted the submission that:

• The plot abuts two roads.

• There is no encroachment onto the road.

(d) Due process requirement

Municipal authorities must:

• Issue notice,

• Conduct proper inquiry,

• Pass a reasoned order,

before resorting to any enforcement measures.

The respondents had not followed this.

(e) Protective relief appropriate

Given the circumstances, the Court felt the matter did not require continuing adjudication and could be disposed with a simple direction protecting the petitioner.

5. Final Order – Legal Effect

The Court disposed the writ petition with the following binding direction:

Authorities are restrained from disturbing the petitioner’s construction activity unless they follow due process of law.

No costs were awarded.
Miscellaneous petitions were closed.