This Supreme Court writ petition dismissed as recovery of possession from third party encroachers involves disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication in civil court under Article 140 CPC, not public law intervention.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach competent civil court. No order as to costs.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.18045 OF 2014
ORDER:
Writ petition is thoroughly misconceived as petitioner had given a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the District Collector alleging that her land is encroached by some third parties and that the said land is further likely to be alienated by third parties. The grievance of the petitioner, primarily, appears to be against the said third parties, who have encroached on her land and whose names are also mentioned in the said legal notice. After receiving the said notice, the Collector in his proceedings in Rc.No.E2/2843/13, dated 18.03.2013, has required the Tahsildar to look into the said matter and give suitable reply to the legal notice. Petitioner states that no further action is taken by the Tahsildar. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking relief against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for not taking any action against the said encroachers, who are impleaded as respondent Nos.5 to 9.
In my view, the petitioner’s claim for recovery of possession from third parties is a matter, which is required to be agitated in an appropriately framed suit before civil court but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the civil rights of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated especially as several disputed questions of fact arise in such adjudication. Hence, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court, this writ petition is dismissed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
July 2, 2014 LMV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Article 226 is an appropriate remedy for recovery of possession from third party encroachers when civil rights require adjudication by civil court?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Unknown Petitioner
Unknown Respondents
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
