LexMOHAN PANDEY AND ANOTHER versus SMT. USHA RANI RAJGARIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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. ! The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F 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 A B c 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R. 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- 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 res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.