Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed title and specific-performance claims pending before civil courts.

The petitioner alleged that his father had entered into an agreement for sale dated 20 May 1997 with the father of Respondent No. 7 concerning land comprised in Khata No. 51, Plot Nos. 28 and 29, Thana No. 65, Mauza Maheshi, Bhagalpur, for a consideration of ₹3,12,001, which was allegedly paid in full, though no registered sale deed was executed.

The petitioner’s father instituted Title Suit No. 23 of 2015 seeking specific performance, which remained pending.

During the pendency of that suit, Respondent No. 7 allegedly obtained permission/dealership for establishing a petrol pump on the disputed land.

The petitioner challenged the proposed establishment and sought production and quashing of the relevant lease/dealership arrangement, contending that the authorities ought not to have permitted the petrol pump while title to the land was sub judice.

The State disputed the factual premise, asserting that the No Objection Certificate related to land at Mouza Rabbichak rather than Mouza Maheshi, and further contended that the petitioner lacked an enforceable right and that the matter involved disputed title questions.

Respondent No. 7 denied the alleged agreement, asserted that it was forged, and relied on registered sale deeds, mutation, and a Land Possession Certificate to establish his title and possession.

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable where the petitioner’s claim was founded on a disputed agreement for sale and the parties’ title and contractual rights were already pending adjudication in a civil suit.

2. Whether the Court could quash or direct reconsideration of the permission/dealership for establishment of a petrol pump merely because the land was the subject matter of a pending title suit.

3. Whether the petitioner established any violation of a fundamental right, natural justice, or a public-law element warranting interference under Article 226.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It held that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily appropriate for adjudicating seriously disputed questions of fact, title, possession, or enforceability of a private contract, particularly where those issues are already pending before a competent civil court.

The Court further applied the principle that Article 226 relief requires an infringement of a legal or fundamental right, breach of natural justice, or a discernible public-law element; a purely private dispute concerning immovable property and contractual rights does not, by itself, justify writ intervention.

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

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge to the petrol-pump permission depended substantially on establishing the validity and enforceability of the alleged 1997 agreement for sale.

That agreement was expressly denied by Respondent No. 7, who claimed title on the basis of registered sale deeds and revenue documents, making the dispute one of contested title and private contractual rights.

Since the same dispute was already pending in Title Suit No. 23 of 2015, the Court held that it could not determine the parties’ competing rights or grant consequential relief in writ proceedings.

The Court also found no demonstrated infringement of a fundamental right, violation of natural justice, or public-law element.

Further, the petitioner did not establish that his representation dated 5 March 2018 had been submitted to or considered by the concerned Oil Marketing Company before the dealership was granted.

Accordingly, the alleged pendency of the civil dispute did not, without more, justify quashing the dealership or permission.

It declined to quash the petrol-pump dealership/permission or issue directions to the authorities.

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the civil court in Title Suit No. 23 of 2015.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.