Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked for Title Adjudication or Permanent Injunction in Property Disputes Including Encroachment Proceedings

The appellants filed a Writ Appeal against a Single Judge's order dated 19.02.2026, which dismissed their writ petition (WPC No. 1966/2012).

The appellants claimed that the subject land (Khasra No. 2009/1) was held by their forefathers prior to 1954 and that the Board of Revenue had ordered its settlement in their mother’s name in 1984.

They sought a mandamus to restrain the State from interfering with their possession and from demolishing their houses.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, observing that the appellants were essentially seeking a decree for permanent injunction and declaration of title, which are matters for a Civil Court.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appropriate remedy for resolving disputes involving questions of title and seeking permanent injunction against the State.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s order directing the parties to Civil Court was legally sound despite the appellants' reliance on revenue orders from 1984.

property disputes involving "pure property matters" and disputed questions of title should not be entertained under writ jurisdiction.

High Courts must not interfere in private property disputes or seeking essentially civil decrees under Articles 226 or 227 unless there is a clear infraction of a statute or collusion with a statutory authority.

The Division Bench examined the reliefs sought by the appellants and noted that they were seeking a decree of permanent injunction and a declaration of title in the garb of a writ petition.

the appellants relied on internal revenue proceedings from 1969 and 1981 to claim possession, they failed to present conclusive documents of title to prove they were not encroachers.

since the title itself was in dispute, the adjudication required a factual inquiry and weighing of evidence that cannot be effectively performed in writ proceedings.

the High Court’s summary jurisdiction is not a substitute for the exhaustive fact-finding process of a Civil Court.

It concluded that where title is in dispute, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit.

The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the liberty granted to the appellants to approach the Civil Court and the 30-day protection against coercive action (as granted by the Single Judge) to facilitate the filing of a civil suit. No order as to costs was made.