Civil Courts, Not High Courts under Article 226, Must Adjudicate Title Disputes and Transformer Relocation Claims

The petitioner claimed that his mother was allotted 8 decimals of government land in Saharsa via a government scheme in 2004, upon which a house and shop were constructed

The petitioner alleged that respondent electricity officials, without notice, forcibly installed a transformer on a portion of this land, creating a fire hazard and endangering his livelihood

Conversely, respondent nos. 6 to 9 filed a counter-affidavit asserting that the transformer was installed on government land following a formal site selection and demarcation process involving the Collector and the Revenue Department

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate a factual dispute regarding the title and demarcation of land

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for the removal of the transformer installed by the Electricity Department

The court primarily relied on the constitutional limits of Article 226, holding that writ jurisdictions are not intended for resolving civil disputes or title suits

Where property rights are affected by the installation of power infrastructure, the aggrieved party should seek compensation before the concerned District Judge rather than invoking writ remedies [Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles Industries Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 143]

The court observed a direct conflict between the petitioner’s claim of private ownership and the State’s claim that the transformer sits on government land

The court reasoned that since the matter involves a "civil dispute relating to the title of land," it cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The court noted that the respondents had followed due procedural demarcation before installation

The court determined that the proper remedy lies in the Civil Court for title adjudication or before a District Judge for compensation, as the High Court cannot resolve these contested factual and proprietary issues

It held that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for title adjudication and removal of the transformer, or to approach the District Judge within four weeks to seek appropriate compensation under the principles of the Power Grid Corpn. case. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly