Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for deciding disputes relating to title and possession of property, for which remedies under the general law are available. The writ jurisdiction is special and extraordinary, and is not intended to replace the remedies available by way of suit or any application available to a litigant.

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The overt act of Police Authorities in assisting the private respondent No.5 to take possession of Premises No.35A & 35B, Karl Marx Sarani (previously known as 35, Garden Reach Road) is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioners claimed to be the absolute owner of Premises No. 35A & 35B, Karl Marx Sarani by way of inheritance from their predecessors. The petitioners alleged that their claim to ownership of the suit property would be borne out from the registered deeds executed in the office of DRP and SRO in the name of Sk. Gulam Nabi and others and the said property has been duly recorded in the office of KMC. The original recorded owner was Gooljan Bibi who was the great grandmother of the petitioner No.2. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No.5 with the help of Committee of Hooghly Imambara was trying to assert their right in respect of the property by virtue of a deed executed in the year 1993 duly registered in the Office of Calcutta Assurance in an attempt to deprive the petitioners of their right, title, interest and enjoyment of the property in question.

3. The immediate cause of action for filing the writ petition is an incident alleged to have occurred on 24th November, 2014 when it is alleged that the respondent No.5 and its men, servants, agents and associates accompanied by huge police authorities attempted to break open the padlock put by the petitioners and failed in their attempt to do so. They removed the padlock by using gas cutter and the entire incident occurred in presence and executed in active participation of the Senior Police Officials as well as Assistant Police Commissioner and with the help of the police authorities, the respondent No.5 with their men, servants and agents forcibly entered into the premises in question. The entire episode, it is alleged, has been recorded in the CCTV installed outside the wall of the premises in question and footings of the CCTV would show that the local Police Authorities are directly and unauthorizedly involved in helping the respondent No.5 in taking possession of the premises in question forcibly and illegally which, it is alleged at the relevant point of time, was under the occupation of the petitioners.

4. Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits that the respondents, in chorus, raise preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant petition alleging that it involves disputed questions of facts, title over the property and contend that the subject matter of this petition cannot conveniently be decided in the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

5. It is submitted that such submissions of the respondents are made in desperation and intended to divert the attention of this Hon’ble Court from the core issue involved in the petition, namely, if the Police interferes with the property rights of the citizens and assists some one to gain advantage over the other in respect of the property, it is the writ Court which has to set right the wrong without going into the question of the right, title and interest of the parties over such property. Police having acted beyond its jurisdiction, the remedy lies in approaching the court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not the appropriate remedy.

6. The exclusion of the Government (Police in this case) from the operation of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is required to be taken into consideration. This exclusion reinforces the submission of the petitioners that the State is not free to act in an arbitrary manner by taking law in its own hand and forcibly dispossess the petitioners without having recourse to the process of law and in case the State acts in such manner the remedy available is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The preliminary objections of the respondents are thus misplaced and contrar