Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed title and possession in pending private property litigation.

The petitioners approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking protection against alleged illegal demolition of their residential house, interference with their possession, and alteration of the physical features of property situated over Khasra Nos. 578/33 and 578/22 by respondent No. 2 on the basis of a disputed sale deed. They also sought police protection and restraint against demolition, dispossession, alienation, or alteration of the property.

The petitioners claimed settled possession and relied upon pending civil litigation and an order of status quo passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Second Appeal No. 304 of 2024.

The State opposed maintainability, contending that the dispute was essentially between private parties and involved disputed questions of title and possession already pending before the civil court.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable for granting protection against alleged demolition, dispossession, and interference with possession when the dispute involved private rights, disputed title and possession, and pending civil proceedings?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to police protection or other preventive relief under writ jurisdiction despite the pending civil litigation and the existing status quo order?

Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent civil court?

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not appropriate for adjudicating disputed questions of title, possession, or the physical identity of immovable property, particularly where the dispute concerns private rights and civil proceedings are already pending.

The existence of a status quo order in the pending second appeal did not justify adjudication of the underlying property dispute in writ proceedings.

Appropriate relief relating to possession, injunction, demolition, or alteration of property must be sought before the competent civil court in accordance with law.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court examined the reliefs claimed and the documents relied upon by the petitioners and found that the controversy essentially concerned private rights in immovable property, including disputed questions of title, possession, and the identity or physical features of the property.

Since civil litigation between the parties was already pending and a status quo order had been passed in the second appeal, the Court held that exercising writ jurisdiction to determine or protect the claimed private rights would be inappropriate.

Consequently, the requested directions for police protection, restraint against respondent No. 2, and prevention of demolition or dispossession could not be granted in the writ petition.

The Court nevertheless preserved the petitioners’ right to seek suitable interim or substantive relief before the competent civil court.

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the competent civil court within 15 days from the date of the order. For that 15-day period, the concerned respondent-authorities were directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioners concerning the subject matter of the petition.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ respective claims, and made no order as to costs.