AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
“i.For seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent authorities to take immediate steps to protect the life and property of the Petitioner and his wife on representation of the Petitioner and to restore the possession of the land of the Petitioner which is Annexure-P1.
ii.For prayer to direct the Respondent authorities to lodge FIR against police officials and employees of police station, Hariharnath and also take departmental action who despite prior intimation of incidents did not take any action and connived with land mafia to illegally dispossess the Petitioner from his land in violation of the due process of law as the erring officials has not acted upon the application and request of the Petitioner.
iii.For prayer to direct the Respondent authorities to restore back the possession of the land of the petitioner from which the Petitioner has been dispossessed by use of force in violation of the due process of law.
iv.For prayer to direct the Respondents to maintain and restore the possession and the status quo ante dated 14th of September, 2024 of the land in question till final adjudication of Title Suit for declaration and injunction pending before Ld Court of Sub Judge, Sonepur bearing Title Suit no. 265 of 2023.
v.For that any other relief or reliefs may be granted as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old person, who is in possession of his residential house and adjoining land and has been living at Hariharnath, Saran since 1991. He further submits that on 14.03.2024, Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11, along with others, armed with hammer, rod, pistol and JCB machine, broke open the wall of the petitioner and forcibly entered the land of the petitioner and erected a temporary partition with iron sheets. He further submits that Respondent No. 9 is the only child of the petitioner, who has been pressurizing the petitioner and his wife to sell off the house and land and hand over the money from such sale proceeds for the last 2-3 years. He also submits that Respondent No. 9 has deliberately and illegally executed a sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 on 16.02.2024, during the pendency of Title Suit No. 265 of 2023.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land situated at Mauza-Bagh Mirza Dil, Thana No. 105, bearing Settlement Nos. 81 and 82, having an area of 4.18 Katha, which is topo land. The petitioner's house is built on 3 Katha of the land, while the entire land is surrounded by a boundary wall. The Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 265 of 2023 against his daughter (Respondent No. 9). He also submits that Respondent No. 9 found out that her father, Mukund Kumar (the petitioner), was selling the land and not giving her the money, whereupon she sold 3 Katha of the land to her neighbours, Pawan Kumar Singh and Nilkanth Kumar Singh, on 16.02.2024.
Learned counsel for the State lastly submits that all necessary steps have already been taken by the police, and an F.I.R. against the concerned accused has also been registered; hence, there is no relevance of the present writ petition, which is fit to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 submits that they got a piece of land from Respondent No. 9 by way of Sale Deed No. 2024, dated 16.02.2024, and that Respondent No. 9 sold her own share because she has a coparcenary right in the property.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it would be apposite to first examine the role played by the State authorities in the present case. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the concerned authorities reveals that all necessary steps have been taken in accordance with law.
Taking into account the various disputed questions arising in respect of possession and the facts pleaded by the petitioner and controverted by the respondents, it is pertinent to discuss a few principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the adjudication of civil rights in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It has repeatedly been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of property disputes related to the title. In Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam reported in (1969) 2 SCC 782, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while explaining the general principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226, held that this jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is not meant for declaring the private rights of the parties. The relevant portion is reproduced as below,
“It is true that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the High Court not for the purpose of declaring the private rights of the parties but for the purpose of ensuring that the law of the land is implicitly obeyed and that the various tribunals and public authorities are kept within the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction, a jurisdiction meant to supervise the work of the tribunals and public authorities and to see that they act within the limits of the irrespective jurisdiction. In a proceeding under Article 226 the High Court is not concerned merely with the determination of the private rights of the parties; the only object to such a proceeding under Article 226 is to ensure that the law of the land is implicitly obeyed and that various authorities and tribunals act within the limits of their respective jurisdiction. Article 226states that the High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. All these writs are known in English law as prerogative writs, the reason being that they are specially associated with the King's name. These writs were always granted for the protection of public interest and primarily by the Court of the King's Bench. As a matter of history the Court of the King's Bench was held to be coram rego inso andwas required to perform quasi-governmental functions. The theory of the English Law is that the King himself superintends the due course of justice through his own Court preventing cases of usurpation of jurisdiction and insisting on vindication of public rights and protecting the liberty of the subjects by speedy and summary interposition. That is the theory of the English law and as pointed out by this Court in Basappa v. Nagappa² our Constitution-makers have borrowed the conception of prerogative writs from the English Law and the essential principles relating to such prerogative writs are applicable in Indian law. It is obvious that the remedy provided under Article 226 is a remedy against the violation of the rights of a citizen by the State or statutory authority. In other words, it is a remedy in public law. But as already pointed out the appellant in the present case is not merely attempting to enforce his contractual right but important constitutional issues have been raised on behalf of the appellant. (Emphasis Supplied)
The above principles have been reiterated in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501, where the court held that it would be an abuse of process to approach a writ court in connection with dispute in question of title for deciding which the civil court is the appropriate forum.
In view of the above, it would be an abuse of process of law for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to the authorities concerned to protect her claim without first establishing her right in an appropriate civil court. It is necessary to add that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations.
Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court for redressal of the grievance.