Rabiya Bano v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35466 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rabiya Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and perused the record.

¶2By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following principal reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in t he nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2023.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take the action and not to disturb in possession of petitioner."

¶3In pith and substance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment made by the private incumbents over his property.

¶4At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant petition by submitting that highly disputed facts are being pressed in the writ petition and in case petitioner is aggrieved with the intervention in her property, either by private party or even the State, he has got the efficacious remedy to approach to the competent civil or recall Court. The said disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶5Once an objection is raised, we find that the core issue is as to whether in such facts, the writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of such disputed rights, which are claimed against the private individuals or even against the State.

¶6In normal parlance, the settlement of dispute relating to property rights between the private persons or even against the State, the Same cannot be adjudicated or pressed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court that regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to the property rights.

¶7The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies, under general law, civil or criminal, are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.

¶8Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court.

¶9With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 A. Pandey High Court of Judicature at Allahabad