Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate private property disputes where civil remedies exist.

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to compel state authorities to remove a signboard, iron pillars, and a gate allegedly installed by a private respondent (Respondent No. 5) on a common pathway

The petitioner further sought directions to restrain the private respondent from parking vehicles on the 10-foot wide common passage, alleging that such activities obstructed access for residents and emergency vehicles like ambulances

1. Whether a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for the settlement of property disputes between private individuals

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies under civil or general law are available

The court primarily applied the principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that it is an extraordinary remedy not intended to replace ordinary civil or criminal remedies

The court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2019) 2 SCC 329, which established that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for property disputes between private parties and that writ jurisdiction is only available where there is a violation of a statutory duty by a statutory authority

It further referenced Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal to underscore that constitutional jurisdiction should not be used to decide private disputes

The court reasoned that the petition was not maintainable on two specific grounds: first, the dispute was essentially between two private parties; and second, the grievance lacked any "ingredient of any criminal act" that required intervention by state police officials

Applying the Roshina T. precedent, the court observed that the petitioner sought to resolve a property right issue regarding a common way, which falls strictly under the jurisdiction of civil courts

The court noted that if writ courts were to "venture into these territories," the effectiveness of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 would be lost, as the High Court cannot "usurp the function of civil courts"

The court answered the issues in the negative, ruling that it cannot interfere in private property disputes under its writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies elsewhere