MOHAN PANDEY AND ANOTHERversusSMT. USHA RANI RAJGARIA AND ORS.

                                                                                    }




A                   MOHAN PANDEY AND ANOTHER
                                 v.
                  SMT. USHA RANI RAJGARIA AND ORS.

                                AUGUST 19, 1992

B        [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950 :

           Article 22fr-Writ jurisdiction of High Cou~Special and extraordi-
    nary-Not to be exercised casually and lightly-Not to be used for enforcement
C   of a private right to immovable property claimed by and against private
    individuals-Not to replace ordinary remedies available by way of suit, ap-
    plication etc. under the general law.

          During the pendency of a suit for. eviction of t'~e appellants from the
D property of Respondent No.1, the appellants were· alleged to have
    trespassed beyond the area which was the subject matter of the suit and
    indulged in several illegal activities. Thus according to Respondents, the
    appellants were guilty of mischievous conduct. The Respondents instead
    of filing a suit in the Civil Court or making appropriate prayer for
    amendment of the plaint in the pending suit filed a Writ Petition before
E   the Hi~ Court for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the
    appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents. The
    Administration and Commissioner of Police were also impleaded as par·
    ties and a direction sought against them not to register any further false
    and vexatious complaints against the Respondents since undue Police
F   help to the appellants was apprehended.

           The High Court gave certain directions to the appellants as regards
    Respondents'/) access to the backyard. The present appeai by special
    leave, is against the said orders of the High Court.

G         On the question whether the Writ jurisdiction of High Court would
    be available for enforcement of a private right to immovable property
    claimed by and against private individuals:

         Allowing the appeals, this Court

H         HELD : 1. A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for setdement
                                          904
              MOHAN PANDEY v. SMT. USHA RAJGARIA [SHARMA, J.]                   905

      of disputes relating to property rights between private persons a~d that        A
      the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available
      except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory
      authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate
      direction to the authority concerned. (907 E,F]

             2. If the real grievance of Respondent No.1 is' against the initiation   B
      of criminal proceeding and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she
      must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal
      Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdic-
      tion to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general
      law, civil or cirminal, are available. It is not intended to repl~ce the        C
      ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant.
      The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised
      casually or lightly. (907 F-H]

              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3284 of D
      1992.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1992 of the Delhi High
      Court in Civil· Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1991.

           R.K. Garg, K.L. Vohra, Rajeev Sharma and D.K. Garg ~or the                 E
--<   Appellants.

           Arun Jaitley, V.B. Saharya, Ashok Bhan and B.K. Prasad for the
      Respondents.                                                          !




                                                                                      F
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 ~
                                                                            I




            SHARMA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave
      is granted.

             2. The respondents in this appeal have successfully invoked the          G
      jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for
-/!   enforcement of a private right to immoveable property against the appel-
      lants who are two brothers and who are resisting the claim. The qqestion
      is as to whether the writ jurisdiction in the· High Court is available for
      the enforcement of such a right claimed by and against private individuals.     H
     906                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1992) 3 S.C.R.

A         3. The dispute relates to a house-property in Delhi. A suit for
   eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial court.
   According to the case of the respondent no.1, who is the owner of the
   propmty, she had let out the same to one Shri B.K. Pandey who later
   illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant no.1. Accord-
B ing to the further ~se of the respondent, the portion of the said house-
   property which is the subject matter of the present case is beyond the
   purview of the pending suit. The occassion for initiating the present
   proceeding with respect to this portion fll'Ose, it is said, on a<µ>unt of the
   high-handedness of the appellants who ill~lly trespassed beyond the area
   which is the subject matter of the pending suit, and indulged in several
c  illegal activities. In other words, the appellants are trespassers and are
   guilty of mischievous conduct. However, instead of filing a suit in the civil
   court or making an appropriate prayer for amendment of her plaint in the
   pending suit, she through respondent no.2 holding power of attorney,
   approached the High Court directly. by a writ petition under Article 226
D for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the appellants from dis-
  turbing the lawful possession of the respondents. The Delhi Administration
  and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, were also impleaded as parties with
  a prayer that appropriate order should be issued against them also and
  they should be directed not to register any further false and vexatious
E complaint against them at the instance of the appellants. It is her case that
  the appellants have been getting undue police help and are being en-
  couraged to commence frivolous criminal cases against respondent no. 1
  and her agent.

F         4. The appellants denied the allegations of fact made against them
    and also challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.

          5. Although the fact that a suit between the parties was already
    pending in the civil court was known to the High Court, it proceeded to
    pass a short order stating ;
G
                "There is already a civil suit pending between the parties.
                Except the prayer in regard to access to the backyard, no other     ~
                relief can be granted in this writ petition.

H               We direct respondents 3 and 4 to remove the grill for access
            MOHAN PANDEYv. SMT. USHA RAJGARIA [SHARMA, J.J                  907

                 to the backyard in the presence of the police and respresenta- A
                 tives of the petitioners on Sunday, 23rd February 1992 at 11.00
                 a.m. so that the access of the petitioner to the servants quarters
                 is not stopped."

             6. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
      respondent no. 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that B
      prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commis-
      sioner of Police who were respondent nos. 1 and 2 was also made. It has
      to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondent nos. 3 and
      4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned orde,r,
      considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for C

-     removal of the grills for access to the backyard. According to the stand of
      the landlord-respondent, since the police were taking a partisan attitude
      against her, the filing of a writ petition became necessary. We are unable
      to follow this argument. There is no doubt that the dispute is between two
      private persons with respect to an immoveable property. Further, .a suit D
      covering either directly a portion of the house-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. The respondent justifies the step of
                                                                            1




                                                                            1



      her moving the High Court with a writ petition on the ground of some
      complaint made by the appellants and the action by the police t~en . E
      thereon. We do not agree that on account of this development, the respon-
      dent was entitled to maintain a writ petition before the High Court. It has
      repeatedly been held by this court as also by various High Courts tha~ a
      regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating
      to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under
     Article 226 of the constitution shall not be available except where violation F
     of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And
      in such a case, the court will issue appropriate direction to the authority
..   concerned. If th.e real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation
     of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon,
     she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the cr•al G
     procedure code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdic-
     tion to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general
     law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the
     ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant.
                                                                                  H
                                                                                    J

    908                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A   The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised
    casually or lightly. We, therefore, hold that the High Collrt was in error in
    issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgment
    under appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment
    is set aside and the writ petition ohhe respondents filed in the High Court
B   is dismissed. There will be no order' as to costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeals allowed.




                                                                                    +-.