This writ petition seeking direction to protect peaceful possession was dismissed. The court held it could not interfere in a pure property dispute between private individuals absent statutory infraction or collusion.
Direction to protect petitioner's possession was refused; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8911 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to protect the right of the petitioner so that private respondents may be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The Supreme Court in a long line of judgments have settled the law that in the matter of property dispute the High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has considered a large number of its earlier judgements and held as under:-
"64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions.
65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority."
In view of the above, we decline to interfere in the matter as it relates to the property dispute against the private respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy which is available under the law.
The dismissal of the writ petition would not cause any prejudice to the interest of the petitioner if he seeks remedy in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019/SR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 in a dispute regarding peaceful possession involving private respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar PatilReferred¶5
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 · Who else cites this
Ram Chandra Maurya
State Of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
