Bombay High Court
KISANA NATHU GHUTIYAversusTHE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN DIU AND DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that disputes over right, title, and interest in land are not maintainable under writ jurisdiction and must be pursued through appropriate civil or revenue proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a rule and orders directing the respondents to take legal action against alleged trespass on his plot of land and to restrain them from disturbing his possession without due process. The respondents objected, arguing that the dispute over title and interest could not be entertained under writ jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the writ jurisdiction was appropriate for adjudicating a land ownership dispute. It held that such matters are not maintainable under writ jurisdiction and must be pursued through an injunction or declaratory suit before the appropriate court or revenue authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with a direction to approach the competent forum for relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable for disputes concerning right, title, and interest in land
- Whether the Court can direct respondents to take legal action and restrain them from disturbing possession under writ jurisdiction
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- maintainability
- land possession
- injunction
- declaratory suit
- civil procedure
Judgment
PDP 44-WP-10232-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAVIN
Digitally signed
by PRAVIN
DASHARATH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10232 OF 2026
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2026.09.11
20:34:00 +0530
Mr. Kisana Nathu Ghutiya .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Administrator, Union Territory
of Daman, Diu and Dadra and Nagar
Haveli & Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Devmani Shukla a/w Rajesh Sahani for Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w Harsh Dedhia for Respondent Nos.1 to 9.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The instant Petition is preferred, inter alia, with following
reliefs: -
“(a) Rule be issued;
(b) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing
the Respondents Nos.1 to 5 to take legal action in a time
bound manner upon the Petitioners written complaint dated
29.6.2026 (Exhibit A) and 1.7.2026 (Exhibit B) for the
incidents dated 27.6.026, 28.6.2026 and 30.6.2026
committed against the Petition upon the said plot of land in
question.
(c) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing
the Respondents not to disturb the lawful and peaceful
possession and occupation of the Petition upon the said plot
of land in question without following the due process of law
1
PDP 44-WP-10232-2026.doc
and without any order being passed by any authority or
Hon’ble Court granting them permission to enter upon the
said plot of land in question for the purpose of taking
possession and occupation of the said plot of land in
question from the Petitioner.”
2. The learned counsel for the respondents raised an
objection qua the maintainability of the instant Petition as the
disputed facts qua the right, title and interest cannot be adverted
under the writ jurisdiction.
3. We find the appropriate remedy is to press the
injunction/declaratory suit before the competent Court/Revenue
Authority in accordance with law.
4. With the aforesaid leave, the instant Writ Petition is
disposed of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…