Satish Chandra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38342 of 2023 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Gaurang Kulshreshtha Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner s and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶2Present writ petition is preferred for direction commanding the State-respondents to take necessary action against respondent nos. 4 to 8 (private respondents), so that the petitioners may not be dispossessed from Gata No. 479 & 497, area 0.4352 hectare situated in Village-Chaurangahar, Manbhawatipura, Bah, Agra.

¶3Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that admittedly, the petitioners had preferred suit for partition bearing No. 02112 of 2018 (Sateesh Chand v. Rahul Kaushal). He submits that, in case, there is disobedience or breach of injunction, the efficacious remedy is to prefer an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(CPC).

¶4The core issue before us is whether the writ jurisdiction in the High Court is available for enforcement of such rights claimed by and against private individuals or against the State.

¶5As per record, there is no doubt that the dispute is between private persons with respect to an immovable property. Further, a suit covering either directly a portion of the property, which is in dispute in the present case, or in any event some other parts of the same property, is already pending in the civil court/revenue court.

¶6We do not agree that on account of this development, the petitioners are entitled to maintain this writ petition before this Court. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between the private persons or with the State and the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall not be available, except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged.

¶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 entertain the writ petition. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to press this relief before the competent civil court.

¶9With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Rama Kant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad