Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Adjudicate Title Disputes or Recovery of Possession Against Private Parties

The petitioner purchased raiyati and homestead land in the name of his late wife through registered sale deeds dated 27.06.1991 and 26.11.2019.

Jamabandi was opened and rent receipts were issued in the wife’s name.

Previously, in 2011-12, the petitioner’s vendor initiated a proceeding (BLDR Case No. 91 of 2011-12) before the DCLR, Benipatti, who initially ordered the eviction of private respondents (Respondent Nos. 6-9).

However, upon challenge before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, the parties were directed to approach the Civil Court.

The petitioner filed this writ seeking a direction to the authorities to remove the private respondents from the encroached land, asserting the land was fertile and fit for cultivation.

The State contended that the vendor’s title was never confirmed and that spot verification by the Anchal Amin on 10.09.2020 revealed that the private respondents have houses situated on the disputed land.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued to remove private respondents from land involving a title dispute.

2. Whether the Revenue Authorities have the jurisdiction to adjudicate complex disputes of title and possession between private parties.

Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate remedy for the recovery of possession or resolution of property disputes between private individuals.

Revenue Authorities cannot intervene or pass specific orders to vacate land when a bona fide dispute of title is involved.

Such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Competent Civil Court for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

The Court observed that the petitioner sought the removal of private individuals from alleged raiyati land, a relief that pertains to the recovery of possession rather than the enforcement of a public duty.

The Court noted that the DCLR, Benipatti, had previously doubted the validity of the vendor's title, meaning the petitioner’s derivative title remained legally "under the scanner".

Furthermore, the State’s counter-affidavit, supported by an Amin's report dated 10.09.2020, confirmed that the private respondents had established residences on the plot, a fact the petitioner failed to controvert via rejoinder.

Since the dispute involves contested facts regarding title and encroachment by private parties, the Court reasoned that no positive direction could be issued in writ jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the writ application, affirming that Revenue Authorities and Writ Courts cannot adjudicate private property title disputes.