Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Cannot Be Invoked for Property Protection or Resolving Disputed Possession Claims.

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the protection of their life, liberty, and property

They claimed to be in possession of a property in Village Thano for 70 years and alleged that private respondents (No. 5 and 6) were attempting to grab the land through demolition and threats

The petitioners relied on a legal heir certificate and revenue records showing their grandfather’s name (Fakira) in Khasra No. 148 ka

Respondent No. 5 countered that he is the absolute owner of the dilapidated house situated in Khasra No. 148 kha, supported by an official revenue inquiry report dated 28.11.2025

The court noted that Khasra 148 ka and 148 kha are distinct parcels of land

A status quo order was previously passed on 19.12.2025

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for the protection of property rights involving a factual dispute

2. Whether the petitioners established sufficient evidence of possession to warrant judicial intervention against private individuals

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which distinguishes between the protection of fundamental rights (life and liberty) and the adjudication of private property disputes

Alternative Remedy, emphasizing that property disputes and claims of possession are subject to civil litigation rather than writ jurisdiction

Abuse of Process of Law, holding that writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a tool to "grab" property or bypass due process in civil courts

The Court observed that while it generally directs protection for life and liberty, the petitioners here specifically and "deliberately" sought protection for property to settle a private dispute

Upon examining the revenue records, the Court found that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence of possession over the specific property in question

Conversely, the unchallenged revenue report submitted by the State authorities identified the property as the ancestral home of Respondent No. 5

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that even trespassers cannot be evicted without due process, noting that the petition was not a bona fide request for protection but an attempt to grab ancestral property belonging to another

The Court concluded that the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy through civil law and that invoking writ jurisdiction in this context constituted an abuse of the legal process

The Court vacated the interim status quo order

The court clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioners' right to seek appropriate relief through a civil court of competent jurisdiction