Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve property disputes pending in civil courts, emphasizing that appropriate remedies should be pursued through the general legal system.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. In the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):-

“i) For issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to take legal action against Respondent No. 8 restraining him from forcefully dispossessing these petitioners and undertaking any illegal construction work on Raiytee land of the petitioners upon which they are in peacefully possession for last thirty eight years.

ii) For a direction upon respondent No. 7 to immediately make recommendation for initiation of 144 Cr. P. C. proceeding over the land and restrain the parties from going forum over the same so that peace & tranquility could be maintained.

iii) For further direction for respondent authorities to provide protection to the petitioners so that their land over which they have got perfect right, title and possession and confirmed by judgment and decree dated 16.3.2011 passed by the Civil Court, Patna, could be saved from illegal dispossession at the hands of respondent no. 8 (Umesh Kumar Yadav) who was got no right, title, interest over the land in question.

iv) For any other relief and reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land appertaining to Plot No. 246, Khata No. 74, Tauji No. 173 C, Survey Thana No. 25 Phulwari Sarif, Mauza-Shahbudin Pakari (Dusadhi Pakari) belong to the petitioners and they have jointly acquired the said land through registered sale deed in the year 1976. He further submits that civil suit was filed in T.S. No. 74 of 1996 in the Court of Sub Judge, Patna which was decided in favour of the petitioners by virtue of judgment dated 16.03.2011. He further submits that during pendency of the suit Maheshwar Singh executed sale deed to Umesh Kumar Yadav (respondent no.8) on 24.12.2002 and on the basis of said execution of sale deed Umesh Kumar Yadav (respondent no.8) is creating disturbance and trying to take forceful possession over the land in question though, the vendor has no title. He further submits that by virtue of judgment dated 16.03.2011 Maheshwar Singh has no title over the land in question and respondent no.8 thereby being a vendee has no right, title over the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have limited grievance that respondent no.8 be restrained from forcefully dispossessing the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have right, title and possession by virtue of judgment dated 16.03.2011 and petitioner is totally protected by the said judgment and no one, more particularly, respondent no.8 cannot dispossess the petitioners from the land in question.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.8 as well as learned counsel for the State submits that both parties have admitted that land in question which is part and parcel of the dispute in present writ and the judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed in the aforesaid Title Suit No.74/1996 has been challenged before the Court of learned District Judge, Patna and the Title Appeal No. 53/2011 is pending over the same land. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present matter is rightly been covered by the Competent Civil Court where the appeal is pending. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ is not maintainable.

4. The question arises for consideration is,

“If the dispute with regard to title over the land in question is pending before the Competent Court, whether writ court has jurisdiction to pass any order?”

In the present case, the petitioners have also admitted that dispute with regard to title over the land in question is