Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Aruna Devi Wife of Shri Sunil Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1839 of 2024
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ petition seeking direction to State Authorities to save and protect life and property of petitioner and her family members from respondents – Property dispute between parties – As a matter of general principle, Writ Court do not enter into purely private title disputes – Adjudication of complex factual dispute over property rights cannot be decided by Writ Court – Such disputes are better handled by regular Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction because title disputes involve complex factual questions requiring detailed inquiry and examination of evidence – High Courts cannot interfere in matters which pertain to property dispute between private parties and fall under jurisdiction of civil court as High Court cannot usurp function of civil courts – In present case there are disputed questions of fact which need adjudication and would require testing rival claims of parties to title and possession – Prayer made by petitioner could not be acceded to – When there is claim and counter claim of possession, right and title over property, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – When husband of petitioner is already before court of competent jurisdiction and has sought same relief before competent civil court, petitioner is not allowed forum hunting and she should seek her remedy before court where partition suit filed by her husband is pending – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Cases Referred:
Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329; Sohan Lal vs. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 39: AIR 1957 SC 529; P.R. Murlidharan vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501 – Relied.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the petition and property dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding petitioner's claim and police actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. jurisdiction and maintainability of writ petitions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. implication of ongoing civil suit on writ jurisdiction. (Para 12) |
| 5. final conclusion: dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents- State authorities to save and protect the life and property of the petitioner and her family members from respondent nos. 7 to 10.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner as it appears from the petition is that the petitioner has been residing in a house built upon Khesra No. 329, Khata No. 85, Thana No. 7/29, Mauza- Jakkanpur, Patna which was purchased by her father-in-law, late Arjun Pandey, in the year 1989 through a registered sale deed. After purchase of the land, Arjun Pandey constructed a pucca house in which the petitioner has been residing with their family. Arjun Pandey had four sons, they are the husband of the petitioner and respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9, respectively. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 have been residing in their paternal Village- Mahatpur, P.O-Dhanar, P.S.-Chandradip Dhanar, District Jamui while the petitioner’s husband has been residing in the house on purchased land situated in Patna. In an oral family arrangement, the husband of the petitioner was allowed to stay in the house at Patna and he had to forgo his share in village property. The petitioner further averred that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 clandestinely sold away their ¾ share in the aforesaid property against the provisions of Transfer of Property Act to a stranger who has been made as respondent no. 10 in the present case. The petitioner came to know about the sale when she received a call from respondent no. 10 asking her to vacate the house. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the sale-deed executed on 28.06.2024 and found that in the sale-deed the land has been shown as vacant land and the basis of title has been explained as family partition, when there was no such partition. Thereafter, respondent no. 10 came with others and threatened the petitioner and her family to vacate the house. A complaint was made to the police authority but no action was taken. Rather, on 30.07.2024, a person called on mobile phone of petitioner’s son identifying himself as SHO of Gardanibagh Police Station and asked the petitioner to come to the police station. When the petitioner reached the police station, she was asked to vacate the house by the police officer present and was threatened that the house would be demolished with JCB. The petitioner gave an application to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sachiwalaya on 31.07.2024. Another application in this connection was given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna on 02.08.2024. Further case of the petitioner is that on 03.08.2024, the co- sharer, respondent no. 9, and others tried to enter in the house and when prevented from doing so, they entered into scuffle and abused the petitioner and threatened to kill her with entire family members. On giving information on emergency no. 112, the police came but left the place without doing anything. Thereafter, a written information was given to Gardanibagh Police Station on 03.08.2024 for the said occurrence. Again on 05.08.2024, co-sharer-Sudhir Pandey, Aditya Pandey along with respondent no. 10 and his son, came to the house of the petitioner with some unknown persons and started abusing and threatening her and tried to break the gate and on failure locked the gate from outside and went away. After sometime, all persons came with Gardanibagh police while the petitioner had come out of house with the help of ladder and left the place out of fear. The police tried to call the petitioner to ensure the entry of the respondent in the house and scared the petiti
Writ petitions concerning property disputes between co-owners are impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative civil remedies exist, necessitating resolution in civil courts.
Civil rights disputes must be adjudicated in civil courts, and the High Court cannot grant police protection without establishing possession through proper legal channels.
Police protection cannot override ongoing civil disputes and must be sought through competent courts.
Point of Law - Where there is flagrant violation of the orders of the execution court and the alternate remedy found to be not efficacious, then police protection could be ordered.
Point of law: the parties to approach the civil forum and when the matters are pending before the civil forum, without narrating the entire happenings, it is not appropriate on the part of the offici....
Police protection cannot be granted in ongoing civil disputes as it may bias the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
