Harun v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36048 of 2023 Petitioner :- Harun Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath 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; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief 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 the mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to restrain the respondent nos.5 to 7 not to create any hindrance in peaceful possession of petitioner over the House No.10/18 situated at Mohall-Ambedkar Colony Aal Darmiyan, Pargana and Tehsil-Kairana, District Shamli.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, District Shamli to take necessary action on the representation of petitioner dated 07.05.2022 within stipulated period, which is pending before the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)."

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

¶4At the very outset, learned Addl. Chief 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 ordinarily 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.

¶6Normally, the settlement of dispute relating to property rights between the private persons or even against the State, the same cannot ordinarily 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/ revenue court.

¶9With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 SP/ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad