Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 24 July, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147310-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20875 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Gopal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ulajhan Singh Bind
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to argue the case.
2. Present writ petition is preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:-
"(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents administrative authority to remove the illegal construction of the respondent no. 6 over the land of the petitioner Arazi No. 232 situated at Mauja Chitrahat, Tehsil Bah, District Agra in compliance of the judgment dated 25.08.2018 and decree dated 01.09.2018 order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 1, Agra in Original Suit No. 715 of 2017 (Sri Ram Gopal Vs. Chandrabhan).
(ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents administrative authority to provide the police protection to the petitioner against the respondent No. 6 and to take necessary legal action against the respondent No. 6 on the representation dated 01.05.2023 of the petitioner within a fixed period/within a specific period as directed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Sri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the entire claim has been set up against the respondent No. 6 who is a private person.
4. The core issue before us is whether the writ jurisdiction in the High Court is available for enforcement of such right claimed by and against private individuals.
5. As per record, there is no doubt that the dispute is between private persons with respect to an immovable property. Further, a suit covering either directly a portion of the property, which is in dispute in the present case, or in any event some other parts of the same property, is already pending in the civil court/revenue court.
6. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between the private persons and the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall not be available, except, where, violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged.
7. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies, under general law, civil or criminal, are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the petitioner has already approached the competent Civil Court, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
9. In view of above, this writ petition sans merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.7.2023
Jaswant
