Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Cannot Be Invoked To Adjudicate Private Land Disputes Having Civil Remedies

The petitioner, Subodh Kumar Singh, filed a criminal writ petition seeking protection from alleged threats and intimidation by private respondent no. 9 (Laxman Pandit) and to restrain State authorities from taking coercive action or interfering with his possession of disputed land

The record revealed a pre-existing civil land dispute, including Title Suit No. 354 of 2023, pending between the petitioner and respondent no. 9

The petitioner alleged harassment through multiple cases, though the court noted the petitioner had already been exonerated in one such criminal case

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for resolving property disputes and seeking protection from private individuals when alternate civil and criminal remedies are available

2. Whether the petitioner’s allegations against the official respondents regarding harassment and coercive action were supported by sufficient material

The court primarily applied the principle that a writ under Article 226 cannot be used to decide private property disputes where ordinary remedies under civil or criminal law are available

The Supreme Court precedent in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2019) 2 SCC 329, which established that the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction should not replace regular suits for settlement of property rights between private persons, except where a violation of a statutory duty by a statutory authority is alleged

The court reasoned that the essence of the dispute was a civil matter involving land claims and an ongoing Title Suit

Upon perusing the record, the court found the allegations against the official respondents "without substance," noting that the police/authorities had not acted improperly, as evidenced by the petitioner’s exoneration in a previous criminal case

Applying the Roshina T. doctrine, the court determined that the petitioner was attempting to use constitutional jurisdiction to bypass general law remedies. The court viewed the institution of a criminal writ for a civil land dispute as an "abuse of process of law"

The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, declining to grant any of the sought reliefs, including protection from private parties or stays on coercive actions