Article 226 is not the forum to adjudicate disputed private title and possession claims.

The petitioners alleged that private respondents constructed a seven-foot boundary wall and installed an iron gate on land claimed by the petitioners at Mauza Bhatarih/Batadih, Khata No. 35, Plot No. 2, and dispossessed them.

The parties asserted competing chains of title deriving from common vendors, and each side relied on registered sale deeds, mutation, and rent payments.

The petitioners also alleged that the authorities failed to act on their complaints.

They sought removal of the wall and action against the private respondents and erring officers.

The State and private respondents maintained that the dispute concerned contested title and possession requiring civil adjudication.

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve the parties’ competing claims to title and possession and order removal of the boundary wall.

Whether the petitioners’ grievance concerning official inaction warranted relief in the writ proceeding, notwithstanding the underlying private property dispute.

Article 226 confers extraordinary public-law jurisdiction, ordinarily not intended to determine private rights or adjudicate disputed questions of title requiring assessment of evidence.

In Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam, (1969) 2 SCC 782, the Supreme Court described Article 226 as a supervisory jurisdiction directed to ensuring that public authorities and tribunals act within their jurisdiction, rather than as a forum for declaring private rights.

P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501, reiterates that resort to writ jurisdiction for adjudication of a title dispute, for which a civil court is the appropriate forum, may constitute an abuse of process.

The Court found that both sides advanced competing title claims supported by separate conveyances, mutation entries, and assertions of possession.

Resolving those claims and determining whether the petitioners had been dispossessed would require adjudication of disputed facts and evidence, making the civil court the appropriate forum rather than a writ proceeding under Article 226.

The Court separately observed that police authorities should take necessary action if either party faces a law-and-order situation.

It disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to seek redress before the appropriate civil court, while stating that the police authorities are expected to address any law-and-order situation.

The pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.