Sangeeta Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36630 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sangeeta Kesarwani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Singh,Dinesh Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,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 nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 5 to vacant the house of the petitioenr House No. 778/5A Mutthiganj, Near Sundarganj Chamrauti Gali, District Prayagraj from his unauthorised possession.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case."

¶3In pith and substance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment made by the private respondent no. 4 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 his property, either by private party or even the State, he has got the efficacious remedy to approach to the competent civil or revenue 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 practice, 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 or the revenue Court.

¶9With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Puspendra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad