Patna High Court

Aruna DeviversusThe State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Aruna Devi filed a writ petition seeking police protection for her life and possession of a house in Patna that she claims was illegally sold by her brothers-in-law to a stranger. The brothers-in-law contend that the house is a joint family property and that a partition had taken place, and the petitioner’s husband has already filed a civil partition suit (Title Suit No. 332 of 2024) seeking declaration of title and injunction. The petitioners argued that the police were colluding with the private respondents and had threatened the petitioner to vacate the house. The State argued that the matter is a private property dispute best resolved by a civil suit and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that writ courts should not adjudicate private property rights and that protection of possession is only available when a civil decree exists, the Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained for protection of possession in a private property dispute where a civil suit is pending.
Whether the police have a statutory duty to protect the petitioner’s possession in the absence of a civil decree.
Whether the sale deed executed by the co‑sharers is void and can be challenged through a writ.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Subjects

property dispute
writ jurisdiction
Article 226
police protection
partition suit
civil remedy
forum shopping
Transfer of Property Act

Judgment

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
4/19

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
5/19

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
6/19

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
7/19

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
8/19

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
9/19

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
10/19

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
11/19

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
12/19

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
13/19

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
14/19

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
15/19

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
16/19

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
17/19

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
18/19

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
19/19

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…