9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Enforcement of private right to immovable property through writ jurisdiction in High Court. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over a house-property in Delhi, where the owner claimed that the appellants, two brothers, were trespassing and engaging in illegal activities beyond the area covered by a pending eviction suit. The owner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directly in the High Court, alleging high-handedness and illegal trespass by the appellants. The High Court, despite knowing about the pending civil suit, issued a direction for the removal of grills for access to the backyard, stating that only relief related to access could be granted in the writ petition. The appellants contested the allegations and challenged the maintainability of the writ petition. The High Court's decision was based on the argument that the police were allegedly supporting the appellants, leading the owner to file the writ petition. However, the Supreme Court held that the dispute between private individuals concerning property rights should be resolved through a regular suit, except in cases involving a violation of statutory duty by a statutory authority. The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to decide disputes for which civil or criminal remedies are available under general law. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in issuing the direction against the appellants through the writ petition. It was held that the writ jurisdiction is special and extraordinary, not intended to replace ordinary remedies like suits or applications. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition filed in the High Court was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
