Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a vested legal right and exhaustion of alternate remedies; it should not adjudicate private disputes lacking public interest.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 8833/2024

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition inter alia seeks for directions to respondent no.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against illegal and unauthorised constructions allegedly raised by respondent nos.3 to 5 over the agricultural land bearing Khasra no. 68/18/1 admeasuring 622 sq.yards and Khasra no.68/13/2 admeasuring 1300 sq. yards situated in the revenue estate of Village Karala, Delhi.

2. The case of the petitioner, as has been unfolded in the instant writ petition, indicates that the petitioner and respondent no.3 jointly purchased the aforesaid agricultural land on 19.01.2013. The petitioner appears to have sold his share of the agricultural land bearing Khasra no.68/18/1 and respondent no.3 transferred his respective share to respondent no.4, who happens to be the real brother of respondent no.3. The respondent no.4 further sold his share bearing Khasra no.68/18/1 to respondent no.5. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent no.5 in connivance with respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 started raising unauthorised construction of godown/factory over the agricultural land. The petitioner further alleges illegal encroachment upon the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra no.68/13/2.

4. Having gone through the facts of the case, it is seen that the land in question is admittedly a private land and the petitioner is claiming rights against the private respondents. The petitioner, however, submits that in the instant writ petition his grievance is not against the action by the private respondents but only against the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi, who under the law is duty bound to deal with the representation made to such an authority. The petitioner, therefore, submits that he is confining his relief only against the official respondents to deal with the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. He, thus, submits that if the construction in question is found to be illegal or unauthorised, the respondents have to take necessary action.

5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court is not inclined to even entertain the aforesaid limited prayer in view of the fact that the inaction on the representation would not itself be a sufficient ground to entertain a writ petition.

6. To invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , a party must demonstrate the existence of a vested legal right. Additionally, the party must substantiate a corresponding infringement. This could be an action that is ultra vires the powers and responsibilities vested in the respondent or indicative of high-handedness. Any party approaching a writ court seeking invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction should also establish that there is no alternate mode to remedy the grievance or the remedy available is not efficacious.

7. The petitioner, at best, can seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law to get his grievance redressed. Without analysing the repercussions which may flow from directions being issued in contentious issues, for deciding the representation, normally courts should stay its hand in passing such direction. Afterall, a striking aspect pertaining to Article 226 of the Constitution which has evolved through judicial interpretation over the passage of time suggests that the writ jurisdiction carries with itself certain self-imposed restrictions, which are inherent in nature of the power and are well-defined. These restrictions, which predominantly include exhaustion of alternate remedy, are meant to ensure that the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 is exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The said exercise of power must reflect a commitment towards maintaining the integrity of the rule of law and should not be aimed at broadening the horizon of writ jurisdiction to adjudicate private disputes which