2018 (12) TMI 1705 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - restoration of possession of flat - whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus against the Appellant directing him to restore the possession of the flat to Respondent No. 1? HELD THAT - It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy Under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent No. 1 (writ Petitioner) in the Civil Court. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Entertainment of writ petition by High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and issuance of mandamus against the Appellant to restore possession of the flat to Respondent No. 1.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, in this judgment, addressed the issue of the maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Court highlighted that the High Court should decline to entertain a writ petition for reliefs that can be sought through a regular civil suit between private individuals. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to replace ordinary remedies available through civil suits or applications. It was held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a mandamus for possession of a flat in a dispute between private individuals, which should have been resolved in a civil court.

The Court emphasized that the questions of ownership, possession, and legality of possession over the flat were factual in nature and should be determined through a properly constituted civil suit based on evidence presented by the parties. The judgment reiterated that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction should not be used to decide disputes that can be resolved through general civil or criminal remedies. The Court cited precedents to support the principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised lightly and should not replace regular legal remedies available to aggrieved parties.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the parties to pursue civil proceedings in the Civil Court for adjudication of their respective claims regarding the flat in question. It was clarified that any observations or findings made by the High Court in the impugned order should not be considered in the subsequent civil or criminal proceedings due to the setting aside of the High Court's order by the Supreme Court.