A petition under Article 226 seeking protection from brothers allegedly intending to dispossess them of property was dismissed as family and property disputes must be resolved through civil or criminal courts.
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.
WPCRL No. 1074 of 2019 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
Heard.
This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter-alia , the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1&2 to safeguards the life and liberty of the petitioner and to provide him safety and security as and when required from the clutches of respondent no. 3 &4 who wants to do away with the life of petitioner as they are having ill intention to take forcible possession of the property of petitioners.”
According to the petition, petitioner no.1 and respondent nos. 3 and 4 are brothers but they are not in good terms. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 had filed a false report against their father also making allegations on petitioner no.2. Now, respondent nos. 3 and 4 are not allowing them to stay in their house. Hence, protection is sought.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that petitioner no. 1 and respondent nos. 3 and 4 are brothers. Since, petitioner no.1 is an obedient son of his father, therefore, a will was executed in favour of petitioner no.1 by his father. It gave occasion to respondent no.3 and 4 to envy petitioner no.1. They lodged a report levelling false allegations against their father that he has relationship with petitioner no.2
and now they are not allowing the petitioners to stay in their house.
It is further argued that in this regard reports have also been lodged but no action has been taken.
Parties have dispute with regard to property and it is necessarily a family dispute with other allegations, as well. In such a matter a petition cannot be generally entertained to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners may seek appropriate remedy in civil or criminal court, as they may be advised. With these observations, this Court is of the view that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
The instant petition is hereby dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Singh, J.) 15.07.2019
Shubham
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 can be entertained in a family dispute involving property and allegations made between brothers.
Whether the writ petition deserves to be entertained or dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State
Alok Singh
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
