Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts of trespass; parties must seek eviction through Civil Court.

The petitioner (a Developer) and respondent nos. 7–9 (landowners) alleged that respondent nos. 5 and 6 illegally trespassed into their premises

The petitioner lodged a complaint with Burtolla P.S., leading to Case No. 156 of 2025 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Earlier, a Single Bench had directed police to prevent trespassers from entering; however, the Hon’ble Division Bench, in an intra-court appeal (MAT 1855 of 2025), set aside that order on December 3, 2025.

The Division Bench observed that the status of the respondents as "trespassers" was a disputed question of fact that could affect their right, title, and interest

Affidavits were subsequently exchanged, and the matter returned for final hearing

1. Whether the Writ Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding trespass and the right, title, or interest in a property

2. Whether police authorities can be directed to evict alleged trespassers under writ jurisdiction during the pendency of a criminal investigation

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, establishing that disputed questions of fact involving right, title, and interest in property must be adjudicated by a Civil Court

It also recognized the procedural application of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding criminal prosecution and the police's duty to maintain public order

The Court relied heavily on the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench, which noted that determining whether the private respondents are trespassers is a "disputed question of fact"

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya reasoned that a Writ Court should not decide such factual disputes as it directly impacts the right, title, and interest of the parties

The petitioner was found to have an alternative and more appropriate remedy in the Civil Court for the purposes of eviction and establishing possessory rights

While the Court declined to grant the Writ of Mandamus to remove the respondents, it balanced the interests of the parties by acknowledging the pending criminal case (Burtolla P.S. Case No. 156) and the state's obligation to prevent violence

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a specific direction to the police authorities to maintain peace and tranquility at the premises and ensure no untoward incidents occur, in light of the ongoing criminal prosecution

Application CAN 1 of 2026 was also disposed of accordingly