Existence of pending civil suit for same reliefs precludes exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The petitioners claim ownership of five acres of land in Pipalva village, Jetpur, via a 1947 allotment (Lekh No. 734)

In 2023, they filed Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 2023 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jetpur, seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction to prevent dispossession

Despite the pending suit, the petitioners alleged that the respondent authorities proceeded to demolish their property without due process or adequate notice, allegedly in violation of Supreme Court guidelines

Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a stay on further demolition and compensation

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a substantive civil suit involving the same subject matter is already pending before a competent Civil Court.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to immediate relief against demolition and for compensation in summary writ proceedings involving disputed questions of fact.

The court applied the principle of "alternative efficacious remedy," observing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary, and should generally not be exercised when a party has already invoked a specialized civil remedy

It also relied on judicial restraint regarding "disputed and complex questions of fact," which are better suited for trial in a Civil Court rather than a writ petition

Supreme Court’s 2024 directions in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022) regarding illegal demolitions

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners had already instituted a civil suit in 2023 covering the same property and rights, any "consequential action" or "subsequent developments" (such as the alleged demolition) should be addressed by that Civil Court

The Court noted that the petitioners had not secured any interim protection from the Civil Court in the pending suit

Therefore, instead of bypassing the lower court, the petitioners should seek to amend their existing suit to include these new grievances

The High Court emphasized that it must be "slow" in entertaining matters where substantially identical remedies are being pursued elsewhere, especially as the dispute involves factual complexities regarding possession and legality of structures

The Court held that the petitioners have an adequate opportunity to ventilate all grievances, including claims regarding illegal demolition and compensation, before the competent Civil Court in the pending Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 2023