Patna High Court
Anar DeviversusThe State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Deptt., Govt. of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the matter is a private property dispute that must be resolved by a civil suit, not by the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Summary
The petitioners, a mother and her son, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the state authorities to restore possession of a house allegedly taken over by the petitioner's other sons and to initiate criminal proceedings against them. The petitioners alleged illegal dispossession, denial of maintenance, and interference with utilities, but no title documents or court orders establishing their right to possession were produced. The Court observed that the dispute is a private land and possession matter with contested facts and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available for such civil disputes where ordinary remedies exist. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that high courts cannot usurp the role of civil courts in adjudicating property rights. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a direction that the petitioners may pursue appropriate civil proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 for a private property dispute between co‑sharers.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restore possession of a house in the absence of a conclusive title determination.
- Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit for recovery of possession.
- Whether the police can be directed by a writ to take action in a private property dispute.
Subjects
- property dispute
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- civil suit
- land possession
- private rights
- police inaction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2778 of 2025
======================================================
1. Anar Devi, W/o Late Satyendra Narayan Singh
2. Vivek Kumar Singh, S/o Satyendra Narayan Singh
Both are residents of Ward No. 7, village- Chondi, P.S.- Barh, District-
Patna, presently residing at C/o Rajesh Kumar, Rajendra Nagar, East
Lohanipur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Deptt.,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Home Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. Director General of Police, BIhar, Patna
4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna
5. Superintendent of Police, Patna Rural, Patna
6. Station House Officer, Barh Police Station, Patna Bihar
7. Amarjeet Kumar Singh S/o Satyendra Narayan Singh R/o ward no. 7, vill -
Chandi, P.S.- Barh, Dist.- Patna
8. Veer Abhimanyu S/o Satyendra Narayan Singh R/o ward no. 7, vill - Chandi,
P.S.- Barh, Dist.- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr.Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, AC to GP-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2026
The record taken up on mentioning being made on
behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking following reliefs :-
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
2/9
“i. Issuance of a direction, order or writ
including writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the concerned state respondent
authorities to restore the possession of the petitioner
no. 1 upon her house located and situated upon land
bearing Khesra no. 127 contained under Khaa no. 43,
within Mouza Daulatpur Chondi, P.S.-Barh, District
Patna, from where, petitioners has been dispossessed
and thrown out by the respondent no. 7 & 8, who are
the sons of the petitioner no. 1 and brother of the
petitioner no.2’
ii. Issuance of a direction, order or writ
including writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the concerned respondent authorities to
initiate proper proceeding against the respondent no.
7 & 8 in accordance with law for illegally
dispossessing the petitioners from the house owned by
and in the name of the petitioner no.1;
iii. Any other relief/reliefs that the
petitioners may be found to be entitled to in the facts
and circumstances of the present case”.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the respondent nos. 7 & 8, who are
sons of petitioner no.1 and brothers of petitioner no.2, have
thrown out the petitioner no.1 from her house and the petitioner
no.1 has made a complaint to Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna for taking action against respondent nos. 7 & 8 against her
dispossession and not providing maintenance to her. The learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
3/9
senior counsel further submits that no action is being taken by
the police authorities.
5. Perused the record.
6. From perusal of representation/application of the
petitioners sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
and other police officials, as contained in Annexure-P/4, it
appears the petitioner no.1 is more aggrieved by the respondent
nos. 7 & 8 for not helping her or petitioner no.2 monetarily. Her
further grievance against the respondent nos. 7 & 8 is that they
have dispossessed from her house and they refused to give her
any share in the ancestral property. Further allegation in the
representation (Annexure-P/4) is that the house which the
petitioner no. 1 has let out on rent in the village was got vacated
by the private respondents by cutting the water and electricity
supply. Thus, it has been prayed before the Director General of
Police that she would be given the possession of her house and
also share in the ancestral property.
7. From the prayer before the Director General of
Police and also the relief sought in the present writ petition, it is
apparent that it is a case of land dispute between the private
persons, who are closely related. No document has been brought
on record showing the title, ownership and possession over the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
4/9
land from which the petitioners claim to have been
dispossessed.
8. No doubt, the writ Court can pass orders for
protecting the possession or even for repossession, but such
orders could be passed where there is no dispute over title or
possession or such rights have been conclusively decided by a
court of competent jurisdiction. But there is no such document
annexed.
9. At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that a land possession
certificate has been annexed as Annexure-P/2 which stands in
the name of petitioner no.1. But the said document is a
document of the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms and
is not the document of any competent court declaring the
possession.
10. 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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
5/9
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
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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
6/9
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)
11. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
7/9
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)
12. 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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
8/9
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
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)
13. 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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2778 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
9/9
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.
14. Considering the nature of dispute between the
parties, which appears to be out and out a land dispute between
the sons, mother and brothers, I am not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed.
15. However, it goes without saying that the
petitioners can have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding
before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…