Mandamus under Article 226 requires a legal right, competent respondent, and no efficacious alternative remedy.

A writ of mandamus under Article 226 requires an enforceable legal right in the petitioner and a corresponding public duty on the respondent. Here, the petitioner failed to produce any title deed or other material establishing ownership, and the dispute involved contested questions of title and possession. The respondent Department of Forests and Wildlife was also not the competent authority to adjudicate the grievance or grant removal of encroachment, restoration of land, or demarcation of boundaries. The petitioner had not first approached the appropriate authority, and the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against writ intervention. The mandamus request was therefore not maintainable on the facts shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing removal of alleged encroachment, restoration of land, and demarcation of boundaries when the petitioner had not established an enforceable legal right and had not first approached the competent authority.

Analysis: A writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only when the petitioner shows a legal right in his favour and a corresponding public duty on the respondent. The land in question was shown to be allotted from Gaon Sabha land, but no title deed or material establishing ownership was produced, and the dispute raised contested questions of title and possession. The Court also found that the respondent Department of Forests and Wildlife was not the authority competent to adjudicate the grievance or grant the reliefs sought. Further, the petitioner had not first approached the concerned authority, and the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction. The reliance on the application under Section 4(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 did not cure the absence of a foundational legal right for mandamus.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for mandamus on the facts shown, and the reliefs were rightly declined.

---