Police-protection writs cannot adjudicate disputed property identity or possession requiring civil-court determination.

Raptakos, Brett & Company Limited claimed ownership and possession over land forming part of Survey Nos. 217/1 and 217/2, described as the “Suit Property,” adjacent to its factory and hospital at Thane.

It alleged that Respondent No. 6 and persons acting through him forcibly entered the property, cut trees, demolished a portion of the compound wall, and subsequently commenced construction thereon.

The Company instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 272 of 2024 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, seeking declarations and permanent and temporary injunctions.

The Civil Court passed orders dated 29 May 2024, 20 July 2024 and 19 August 2024 restraining construction and directing police assistance for implementation of the injunction orders.

The interim application was ultimately allowed on 18 February 2025, restraining the defendants and persons claiming through them from entering the Suit Property or obstructing the petitioner’s security and staff.

Alleging police inaction, the petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing police protection and implementation of the Civil Court’s orders.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court had passed an interim order dated 30 August 2024 directing that construction on the Suit Property be stopped and construction machinery be removed.

The respondents disputed that any construction was taking place on the petitioner’s land and contended that the construction was on their own land pursuant to statutory permissions.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking police protection and implementation of interim injunction orders is maintainable where the identity, possession and ownership of the disputed property, and the location of the alleged construction, remain seriously disputed?

Whether the High Court could direct the police to implement the Civil Court’s injunction orders when the orders and the pleadings did not sufficiently identify the precise land on which the alleged construction was taking place?

Whether the dispute should instead be clarified through a local investigation by a court-appointed commissioner under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

The Court applied Order VII Rule 3 CPC, which requires a plaint concerning immovable property to contain a description sufficient to identify the property, including its boundaries or survey numbers where applicable.

It relied on Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 CPC, under which the Civil Court may appoint a commissioner for local investigation and treat the commissioner’s report and evidence as part of the record.

The Court further applied the principle in P. R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501, that a writ for police protection cannot be used to adjudicate disputed civil rights or protect claimed possession that has not been established; police-protection orders ordinarily lie where the right is declared by a decree or an unambiguous civil-court order.

The Court also recognised the general principle that Article 226 should not be used to decide private property disputes for which an adequate civil remedy exists, absent violation of a statutory duty by the public authority.

The Court held that the central dispute was not merely police non-compliance but whether the alleged construction was actually situated on the petitioner’s land.

Although the plaint referred to Survey Nos. 217/1 and 217/2 and included a sketch, the description did not sufficiently identify the precise portion of land allegedly encroached upon or establish that the construction was occurring on land in the petitioner’s possession.

The photographs showed construction activity but did not conclusively establish its location or prove encroachment on the petitioner’s property.

Because the respondents denied construction on the Suit Property and asserted construction on their own land, the issues of identity, possession and encroachment were disputed questions of fact unsuitable for determination in writ jurisdiction.

The Court distinguished cases involving enforcement of a clear civil decree or unambiguous injunction, observing that police protection could not be ordered where the underlying property rights and the location of the alleged violation remained uncertain.

It therefore directed that the dispute first be clarified through local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, after which the Civil Court could reconsider the temporary injunction.

It granted the petitioner liberty to apply in Civil Suit No. 272 of 2024 for appointment of a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to investigate the alleged encroachment, identify the disputed land and determine the actual site of construction within four weeks.

The Civil Court was directed to decide the application preferably within eight weeks, permit both parties to examine the commissioner, and thereafter pass a fresh order on the petitioner’s temporary-injunction application, if necessary modifying the order dated 18 February 2025.

The High Court’s interim order dated 30 August 2024 restraining construction on the Suit Property was directed to continue until completion of that process and passing of a fresh order by the Civil Court.

There was no order as to costs.