Writ petition is not maintainable for adjudicating disputed questions of title and possession over immovable property.

The petitioners claimed ownership of a house in Village Baunsi, Madhubani, purchased via sale deeds in 2016 and 2019.

They alleged that while they were away for professional duties, Respondent No. 9 illegally encroached upon the property in 2019.

Respondent No. 9 countered that he obtained possession in 2014 from one Mithileshwar Prasad Singh through an agreement for sale.

Regarding the criminal aspect, the petitioners sought a fair investigation into Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 05/2021.

The State informed the court that a charge-sheet had already been submitted in that case, as well as in a counter-FIR.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued to adjudicate a property dispute involving contested claims of title and possession between private parties.

2. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition regarding improper police investigation when a charge-sheet has already been filed.

3. Whether the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy bars the maintainability or entertainability of the writ petition.

The Court applied the discretionary principles of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, distinguishing between "maintainability" (jurisdictional capacity) and "entertainability" (judicial discretion).

It relied on *Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks* [(1998) 8 SCC 1], establishing that while Article 226 powers are plenary, the Court should not normally exercise them if an alternative remedy exists unless there is a violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of an Act.

The Court further cited *Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh* [(2021) 6 SCC 771] regarding the rule of policy and convenience in exhausting statutory remedies.

The Court further cited *Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer* [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 95] regarding the self-imposed restrictions on writ jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute involved "disputed questions of fact" regarding the right, title, and actual possession of the immovable property.

Since both parties produced conflicting claims (sale deeds versus prior agreement for sale), the Court reasoned that such matters are strictly within the domain of a competent Civil Court rather than a writ court.

Regarding the criminal grievance, the Court noted that because the police had already completed the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet, the petitioners’ remedy lay in filing a "protest petition" before the jurisdictional Magistrate rather than seeking a mandamus for investigation.

The Court concluded that no exceptional circumstances (such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction) were present to bypass these alternative efficacious remedies.

The petitioners were granted liberty to move a competent Civil Court for the property dispute and to file a protest petition before the Jurisdictional Magistrate regarding any grievances with the police investigation in Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 05 of 2021.