This court dismissed the writ petition concerning a dispute over land demarcation between private parties, holding that such matters must be resolved through a civil suit where evidence can be adduced.
The writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the petitioner approach the civil court for appropriate relief.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23143 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kavita Tomar,Jai Raj Singh Tomar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
(2)
In para 10 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court has observed as under :-
"10. If a person has been dispossessed from immovable properly without his consent otherwise than in course of law, he has a right to file a suit to recover its possession. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act specifically provide for such a suit to recover the possession of the property. In such a case writ petition is not an appropriate remedy, because of various reasons, one of which is that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue writ of mandamus to private individual, unless he acted in exercise of statutory power and/or was discharging public duty. In Qamaruddin v. Rasul Baksh, 1990 AWC 308 Supreme Court, in this connection, has laid down as under :
"A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless he is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty. The dispute involved in the instant case was entirely between two private parties, which could not be a subject-matter of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution."
Following the above decision a Full Bench of this Court in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, 1991 AWC 213, has reiterated the same principle when it observed as follows :
"The opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in Qamaruddin's case (supra) to the extent that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless he is under statutory duty to perform a duty is in accord with well established principles regarding writ of certiorari and mandamus and need no reiteration or elaboration at our hand."
In Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayami Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607, relevant extract from which is reproduced below. Supreme Court has laid down that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued if the rights are purely of private character and/or person or authority whose order is challenged is purely private body with no public duty :
"If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to Mandamus."
Therefore, if a person has been unlawfully dispossessed from his property without any recourse to law by a private person, no writ can be issued to restore the possession of that property to the person who has been dispossessed from it. The only remedy in such a case is a civil suit."
(3)
approach the civil court for appropriate relief.
6. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.12.2021 D. Tamang
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is an appropriate remedy for a dispute regarding demarcation of land between private parties.
Whether Article 226 allows mandamus against individuals acting in private disputes over property rights.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Sundardas Daulat Ram and Sons Vs. District Magistrate, BareillyReferred¶7
M/s Sundardas Daulat Ram and Sons Vs. District Magistrate, Bareilly and others, 1996 (1) JCLR 879
Qamaruddin v. Rasul BakshDistinguished¶10
Qamaruddin v. Rasul Baksh, 1990 AWC 308
Ganga Saran v. Civil JudgeReferred¶13
Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, 1991 AWC 213
Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayami Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. RudaniReferred¶14
Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayami Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohan Singh
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
