[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Aruna Devi vs The State Of Bihar, Through Director ... on 22 January, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1839 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna
======================================================
Aruna Devi Wife of Shri Sunil Pandey Resident of Ramdayal Path, Mohalla
-Jakkanpur, Veer Kunwar Singh Nagar, PS -Gardanibagh, P.O.- Near AK Jha
Gali, Patna-800001.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Bihar
2. Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone Bihar
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna Bihar
4. That Superintendent of Police, Town, Patna Bihar
5. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sachiwalaya, Patna Bihar
6. The S.H.O., Gardanibagh Police Station, Patna Bihar
7. Surendra Pandey Son of Late Arjun Pandey R/o- Village- Mahatpur, P.O.-
Dhanar, P.S.- Chandradip Dhanar, Distt.- Jamui
8. Niwash Pandey Son of Late Arjun Pandey R/o- Village- Mahatpur, P.O.-
dhanar, P.S.- Chandradip Dhanar, Distt.- Jamui
9. Sudhir Pandey Son of Late Arjun Pandey R/o- Village- Mahatpur, P.O.-
dhanar, P.S.- Chandradip Dhanar, Distt.- Jamui
10. Rajendra Prasad Son of Late Satyadeo Prasad R/o- Village- Mokama Near
Mahavir Mandir, Laheria Tola, Ward no. 11, P.S.- P.O.- Mokama, Distt.-
Patna
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore, GP-18
For Resp. Nos. 7 to 10 : Mr. Ranaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Ishiqua Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 22-01-2026
The present writ petition has been filed seeking
direction to the respondents- State authorities to save and
protect the life and property of the petitioner and her family
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
2/19
members from respondent nos. 7 to 10.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner as it
appears from the petition is that the petitioner has been residing
in a house built upon Khesra No. 329, Khata No. 85, Thana No.
7/29, Mauza- Jakkanpur, Patna which was purchased by her
father-in-law, late Arjun Pandey, in the year 1989 through a
registered sale deed. After purchase of the land, Arjun Pandey
constructed a pucca house in which the petitioner has been
residing with their family. Arjun Pandey had four sons, they are
the husband of the petitioner and respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9,
respectively. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent
nos. 7, 8 and 9 have been residing in their paternal Village-
Mahatpur, P.O-Dhanar, P.S.-Chandradip Dhanar, District Jamui
while the petitioner's husband has been residing in the house on
purchased land situated in Patna. In an oral family arrangement,
the husband of the petitioner was allowed to stay in the house at
Patna and he had to forgo his share in village property. The
petitioner further averred that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9
clandestinely sold away their ¾ share in the aforesaid property
against the provisions of Transfer of Property Act to a stranger
who has been made as respondent no. 10 in the present case.
The petitioner came to know about the sale when she received a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
3/19
call from respondent no. 10 asking her to vacate the house.
Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the sale-deed executed on
28.06.2024
and found that in the sale-deed the land has been
shown as vacant land and the basis of title has been explained as
family partition, when there was no such partition. Thereafter,
respondent no. 10 came with others and threatened the petitioner
and her family to vacate the house. A complaint was made to the
police authority but no action was taken. Rather, on 30.07.2024,
a person called on mobile phone of petitioner's son identifying
himself as SHO of Gardanibagh Police Station and asked the
petitioner to come to the police station. When the petitioner
reached the police station, she was asked to vacate the house by
the police officer present and was threatened that the house
would be demolished with JCB. The petitioner gave an
application to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sachiwalaya on
31.07.2024. Another application in this connection was given to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna on 02.08.2024.
Further case of the petitioner is that on 03.08.2024, the co-
sharer, respondent no. 9, and others tried to enter in the house
and when prevented from doing so, they entered into scuffle and
abused the petitioner and threatened to kill her with entire
family members. On giving information on emergency no. 112,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
the police came but left the place without doing anything.
Thereafter, a written information was given to Gardanibagh
Police Station on 03.08.2024 for the said occurrence. Again on
05.08.2024, co-sharer-Sudhir Pandey, Aditya Pandey along with
respondent no. 10 and his son, came to the house of the
petitioner with some unknown persons and started abusing and
threatening her and tried to break the gate and on failure locked
the gate from outside and went away. After sometime, all
persons came with Gardanibagh police while the petitioner had
come out of house with the help of ladder and left the place out
of fear. The police tried to call the petitioner to ensure the entry
of the respondent in the house and scared the petitioner and she
left the house and started living at some other place out of fear
for life and safety. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Title suit No.
332 of 2024 for cancellation of registered sale deed before the
Sub Judge, Patna which is still pending. Thus, the petitioner has
submitted that due to apathetic and callous attitude of the
respondents, the petitioner's life and property are under severe
threat and the petitioners are likely to be displaced from her
only place of residence. With the aforesaid averments, the
petitioner has approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
the petitioner along with her family has been staying in the
house made by her father-in-law and the respondent no. 7, 8 and
9, under a family arrangement, allowed the husband of the
petitioner to stay in the house in lieu of foregoing the share in
paternal property situated in District-Jamui. The police
authorities are hand-in-glove with these private respondents and
by hook or crook they want the petitioner to vacate the house
and remove her from her only place of residence. Learned
counsel further submitted that the malafide of the private
respondents is apparent from the fact that their sale-deed
mentions the land as a vacant land whereas a building is situated
on the said land. Moreover, the respondents 7, 8 and 9 could not
sell the dwelling house in which the family of the petitioner has
been residing. Learned counsel further submitted that the
husband of the petitioner is not mentally sound and is not able to
protect the interest of his family and for this reason, the present
petition has been filed by the petitioner. The respondent nos. 7,
8 and 9 stay at different places and only with a view to harass
the petitioner and her family and for illegal gain, they executed
the sale deed in favour of respondent no. 10. Since the petitioner
has been residing in the property in question with her family, the
respondents-authorities are duty bound to protect her possession
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
but the failed in their duty. Learned counsel further submitted
that the malafide is further apparent from the fact that though
the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 have sold the property, still they
are contesting the present case. It is also not clear in which
capacity, they have put the lock since the property is not theirs
anymore. Learned counsel further submitted that the property in
question is a dwelling house belonging to a joint family and the
respondents- 7, 8 and 9 transferred it to a stranger to the family,
though the petitioner with her family is in possession of the
same. Therefore, the respondents-authorities should be directed
to protect her possession.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents-State submitted that vide order dated 29.10.2024
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Patna was directed to look into the matter and he was
further directed that if it was found that respondent no. 10 has
put his lock in the house, then appropriate action should be
taken. After this order, an inquiry was made and it was found
that two locks were put on the main gate of the house in dispute.
It also came to the notice that nobody has been residing in the
said house. The house has been put under vigil and a report has
been submitted to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sadar,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
Patna on 30.10.2024. The Sub Divisional Police Officer
submitted his report on 06.11.2024 after further inquiry. During
inquiry, the fact came to the knowledge that though the
petitioner claims no partition has been held, other three brothers
and co-sharers informed the police that a partition had taken
place in presence of Panchas on 17.07.2017. But the petitioner
and her husband did not accept this partition kept on dilly
dallying the matter. It led to dispute between the members of the
family and ultimately, three brothers sold their shares only and
left the share of the husband of the petitioner intact. Learned
counsel further submitted that in order to maintain peace
between the parties, preventive action was initiated and non-FIR
Case No. 62 of 2024 was registered under Section 126 of BNSS
and proposal has been sent accordingly. Learned counsel further
submitted that status quo is being maintained on the property in
dispute. Learned counsel further submitted that, admittedly, a
partition suit has been filed by the husband of the petitioner
prior to filing of the present petition and the present dispute is
land dispute between the co-sharers and hence, it is a dispute
relating to property between the private parties and the present
writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel flatly denied
about any collusion between the police officers and the private
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
respondents and submitted that the Investigating Officer noted
the fact that the petitioner put a lock on the main door of the
house and left the house whereupon the second party also put a
lock over the lock put by the petitioner and, as of now, no one is
residing in the said house. Thus, the learned counsel submitted
that the present writ petition may be dismissed with cost.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
nos. 7 to 10 vehemently contended that the present writ petition
is not maintainable and it is an abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has
no locus to file the instant writ petition and pointed out that the
husband of the petitioner has not filed the writ petition, though
he has filed the partition suit vide Title Partition Suit No. 332 of
2024. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claimed that she
has been given the house in question and the respondent nos. 7,
8 and 9 were given share in the paternal property in their native
village but in the title partition suit, no such averment has been
made. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a question of
right of co-sharers/joint owners and is a disputed questions of
fact. Moreover, this property dispute between the private parties
cannot be a subject matter of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
approached this Court seeking protection of her life and
property but, admittedly, she is not staying in the house in
question as she has stated that she left the house after a lock was
put by the private respondents. But it is a completely false
statement and the petitioner herself put a lock and left the house
and thereafter, the private respondents put their lock being the
joint owner. Learned counsel further submitted that for
argument sake, if it is taken that the lock has only been put by
the private respondents, the option available to the petitioner
was to invoke the jurisdiction of civil court seeking removal of
lock but, as it is a property dispute, such prayer could not be
allowed in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted
that, moreover, the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 have sold the land
only to the extent of their shares. Learned counsel further
submitted that the sale deed mentions it is a residential land and
the RCC structure over the said land had been valued separately
apart from the value of the land. So, it cannot be said that the
private respondents have concealed any fact. Learned counsel
reiterated that the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ
petition as she has no right, title and interest in the property in
question. Only her husband has some right and title in the
property in question, that too, to the extent of 1/4th share, which
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
has already been allotted to him. Further, for redressal of his
grievance, he has already approached the competent civil court
by filing Title Suit No. 332 of 2024 prior to the present writ
petition seeking similar relief. The petitioner could not be
allowed to forum shopping as for protection of her possession,
she has already approached the competent civil court. Therefore,
the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of
pendency of Title Suit No. 332 of 2024. Learned counsel further
submitted that the contents of the petitioner that she has been
residing in the house in question is completely denied, the
respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 sold their shares after amicable
partition between four sons of late Arjun Pandey and the share
which was allocated to respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 has been sold
by them to respondent no. 10. Learned counsel further
submitted that both sides have lodged cases against each other.
The sister-in-law of the petitioner, namely Gayatri Devi, has
also lodged Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 386 of 2024 against the
petitioner, her husband and her son. Learned counsel further
submitted that it was the petitioner who put the lock in the
premises and the allegation that the private respondents put the
lock gets falsified by the averment of the petitioner herself that
the private respondents came to the premises with police. If the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
private respondents would have put the lock, there was no need
for them to come at the house in dispute with the police. The
petitioner is not in possession of the house in question and she
herself left the premises and put a lock on the main gate and
thereafter, private respondents put their lock. Learned counsel
further submitted that since the petitioner has no right, title and
interest in the property, as such, there was no threat to her
property. Moreover, for the same relief for the same subject
matter, her husband, who is one of the co-sharers in the disputed
land, had already filed Title Suit No. 332 of 2024. Learned
counsel further submitted that there was no question of any
displacement from the premises in question and the petitioner
has herself left the premises on her own. The petitioner has
alternative and efficacious remedy available to her and the said
remedy has already been opted by her husband by filing Title
Suit No. 332 of 2024 with regard to same piece of land and for
similar relief, therefore, the present writ petition is not
maintainable.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties.
7. From the record and submission made on behalf of
the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner and the respondent
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
nos. 7, 8 and 9 claim the property in question as their joint
family property left by the father of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9
and the father-in-law of the petitioner. As a matter of general
principle, writ court do not enter into purely private title
disputes. Adjudication of complex factual dispute over property
rights cannot be decided by the Writ Court. Such disputes are
better handled by the regular civil courts of competent
jurisdiction because title disputes involve complex factual
questions requiring detailed inquiry and examination of
evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshina T.
v. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329, held in paragraph nos.
14 an 15 as under:
"14. It has been consistently held by this
Court that a regular suit is the appropriate
remedy for settlement of the disputes relating
to property rights between the private persons.
The remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution shall not be available except
where violation of some statutory duty on the
part of statutory authority is alleged. In such
cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue
appropriate directions to the authority
concerned. It is held that the High Court
cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to
be used for deciding disputes, for which
remedies under the general law, civil or
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
criminal are available. This Court has held
that it is not intended to replace the ordinary
remedies by way of a civil suit or application
available to an aggrieved person. The
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution being special and extraordinary,
it should not be exercised casually or lightly on
mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan
Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey
v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61] and
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal
[Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal,
(2003) 6 SCC 230] .)
15. In our view, the writ petition to claim
such relief was not, therefore, legally
permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in
limine on the ground of availability of an
alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by
Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil
court."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Further, in the case of Sohan Lal v. Union of India,
1957 SCC OnLine SC 39: AIR 1957 SC 529, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Paras-5 and 8 held as under:
"5. We do not propose to enquire
into the merits of the rival claims of title
to the property in dispute set up by the
appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to
do so, we would be entering into a field of
investigation which is more appropriate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
for a civil court in a properly constituted
suit to do rather than for a Court
exercising the prerogative of issuing writs.
There are questions of fact and law which
are in dispute requiring determination
before the respective claims of the parties
to this appeal can be decided. Before the
property in dispute can be restored to
Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare
that he had title in that property and was
entitled to recover possession of it. This
would in effect amount to passing a decree
in his favour. In the circumstances to be
mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for
serious consideration whether in
proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution such a declaration ought to
be made and restoration of the property to
Jagan Nath be ordered.
8. In our opinion, the High Court
erred in allowing the application of Jagan
Nath filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution and making the order it did.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the
order of the High Court is set aside. In the
circumstances of the present case,
however, we are of the opinion that each
party should bear his own costs in this
Court and in the High Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
9. In the case of P.R. Murlidharan Vs. Swami
Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Para-17 held as under:
"17. A writ petition under the guise of
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
police authorities to give protection to a writ
petitioner, cannot be made a forum for
adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to
approach the High Court, for issuance of such
a writ on a plea that a particular party has not
obeyed a decree or an order of injunction
passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was
deliberately flouting that decree or order and
in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that
the police authorities are not giving him the
needed protection in terms of the decree or
order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But,
it is quite another thing to seek a writ of
mandamus directing protection in respect of
property, status or right which remains to be
adjudicated upon and when such an
adjudication can only be got done in a
properly instituted civil suit. It would be an
abuse of process for a writ petitioner to
approach the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the police authorities to protect his
claimed possession of a property without first
establishing his possession in an appropriate
civil court. The temptation to grant relief in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
cases of this nature should be resisted by the
High Court. The wide jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution would remain
effective and meaningful only when it is
exercised prudently and in appropriate
situations."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Therefore, the law is settled that the High Courts
cannot interfere in the matters which pertain to property dispute
between the private parties and fall under the jurisdiction of
civil court as the High Court cannot usurp the function of civil
courts. It is clear from the discussion made so far that the
petitioner has approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction with
regard to a dispute over property between co-sharers. In the
present case there are disputed questions of fact which need
adjudication and would require testing the rival claims of the
parties to title and possession. If the writ Courts venture into
these territories, the effectiveness and meaning of this
extraordinary remedy would be lost.
11. So far as protection of possession of the petitioner
is concerned, the same could have otherwise been a ground on
which writ could have been maintained, but in the given facts
and circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner could not
be acceded to. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
Murlidharan (supra) explained when possession could be
protected and held that a writ for "police protection" so-called,
has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for
protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed
by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have
not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least
at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then
too in furtherance of the decree or order. Admittedly, the
petitioner is not in possession as mentioned in the writ petition
itself. It is also admitted fact that husband of the petitioner has
filed a Title partition Suit No. 332 of 2024 prior to filing of the
present writ petition. Therefore, the rights of the parties are yet
to be determined. Moreover, the title suit has been filed seeking
following relief(s):
"(i) That on adjudication of the facts it be
declared that the schedule I property is a joint
and undivided property of the plaintiff and
defendant 1st set
(ii) That it be further declared that the
alleged sale deed dt-28.06.2024 executed by
defendants Ist set in favour of defendant 2nd set
is void, abinition (sic), illegal, fraudulent,
sham, showy and not binding upon the
plaintiff.
(iii) That after granting relief no (i) and
(ii) the defendants I set be directed to execute
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
sale deed of their 3/4th share in favour of the
plaintiff on the valuation as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
(iv) That the defendant 2nd set be
restrained from any kind of alienation or from
changing physical feature of the suit property
as detailed in sch II of the plaint by demolition
or any type of construction and also be
restrained from interfering in the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff till the disposal of
the suit.
(v) That cost of the suit be awarded in
favour of the plaintiff.
(vi) That any other relief or reliefs to
which the plaintiff be deemed to be entitled to
be granted to the plaintiff."
12. Thus, relief (iv) is squarely covered with relief
sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition. When there
is claim and counter claim of possession, right and title over the
property, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in
writ jurisdiction. When the husband of the petitioner is already
before a court of competent jurisdiction and has sought the same
relief before the competent civil court, the petitioner is not
allowed forum hunting and she should seek her remedy before
the court where the partition suit filed by her husband has
already been pending on the date of filing of the present writ
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1839 of 2024 dt.22-01-2026
petition.
13. Therefore, in the light of discussion made here-in-
before, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition of
the petitioner is not maintainable and hence, the same is
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 16-12-2025
Uploading Date 22-01-2026
Transmission Date 22-01-2026
