Writ jurisdiction cannot facilitate demolition of disputed structures while land and possession disputes remain pending before revenue authorities.

The petitioner claimed ownership and bhumidhari rights over land bearing Khasra No. 511 at Village Badowala, Tehsil Doiwala, District Dehradun.

He alleged that Dabal Singh and Yashpal Singh were parking vehicles on a culvert/slab situated on his property and sought police protection to demolish the structure.

The petitioner claimed to have made several representations to the police authorities, deposited ₹14,284 towards police-deployment charges, and approached the Chief Minister’s Online Grievance Portal and other authorities.

He also alleged that Dabal Singh had assaulted him and fired at him.

On the Court’s direction, the State produced written instructions stating that the slab had been constructed by the Zila Panchayat and was allegedly situated on Dabal Singh Bhandari’s land.

The State further informed the Court that a dispute concerning possession, demarcation, and the existence and location of the gul/canal was pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Doiwala, in Case No. 04/18–19 under Section 229-B, with the next date fixed for 22 September 2026.

The petitioner additionally sought refund of the amount deposited for police deployment, as the service had not been provided.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should direct the police to provide protection for demolition of a culvert/slab when ownership, possession, demarcation, and the location of the structure are disputed and pending before a Revenue Authority?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of ₹14,284 allegedly deposited towards police-deployment charges for a service that was not rendered?

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ordinarily appropriate for adjudicating disputed questions of fact concerning title, possession, demarcation, or the location and existence of disputed property.

Where an efficacious remedy is available before the competent Civil or Revenue Court, parties must pursue that remedy for determination of their substantive rights.

The Court also applied the principle that police assistance may be provided for maintaining law and order, subject to the orders of the competent Revenue or Magistrate authority, but cannot be used to facilitate unilateral demolition of a structure whose ownership and location are disputed.

In relation to the deposited amount, the competent police authority was required to examine whether the amount had in fact been paid for an unrendered service and to refund the admissible amount in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.

The Court found that the petitioner’s request for police protection was inseparably connected with unresolved disputes regarding land ownership, possession, demarcation, and the location of the gul/canal and slab.

Since those matters were already pending before the competent Revenue Authority under Section 229-B proceedings, they could not appropriately be determined in writ proceedings.

Granting police protection for demolition would effectively facilitate the petitioner’s unilateral assertion of title and possession before the Revenue Authority had adjudicated the dispute.

Accordingly, the Court declined to issue a mandamus for police deployment or demolition and directed the parties to pursue their remedies before the appropriate forum.

However, because the petitioner claimed that he had paid ₹14,284 for police services that were never rendered, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to examine the claim and refund the admissible amount in accordance with law.

The Court held that the questions of ownership, possession, demarcation, and the location of the structure must be adjudicated by the competent Civil or Revenue Court, particularly since proceedings were already pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, was directed to examine the petitioner’s claim for refund of ₹14,284, or any other amount actually deposited for police deployment, and to refund the admissible amount, preferably within one month from production of a certified copy of the order.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.