THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13335 of 2015

ORDER

Heard Sri Chaitanya Mithra, learned counsel representing Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not acting upon the complaint dated 24.01.2013 made by the petitioner against the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, a Head Constable, had purchased three plots bearing Nos. 65, 66 and 67 in Sy. No. 1618 of Fort Warangal under registered sale deeds dated 21.05.1985. She contends that the said plots were subsequently gifted to her children through registered gift deeds executed in 2009. (for short, “subject plots”).

4. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who had earlier instituted a civil suit for perpetual injunction in 2008 (which was ultimately dismissed), have continued to interfere with the subject properties, attempted to raise unauthorized constructions, and threatened the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.01.2013 before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking preventive police action and registration of a land grabbing case. Alleging failure of the police to act, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the inaction of the police in not acting on the representation amounts to abdication of statutory duty, thereby infringing the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, however, submits that no such representation was received by the respondent police. He further argues that the dispute, on the petitioner’s own showing, is one of private ownership and possession of immovable property, and is therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

7. The issue that arises is whether disputes relating to ownership, possession, and enjoyment of immovable properties between private parties can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. The law is well settled that the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is essentially designed to enforce public law rights. Disputes arising from private civil rights, especially concerning immovable property, are not ordinarily amenable to writ remedies.

9. In the case of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath1, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphatically held as:

“Orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is intended to enforce public law rights against the state or its instrumentalities and not to adjudicate upon private disputes between individuals.”

10. Likewise, in the case of K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage², the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that:

“A writ cannot be issued to resolve private law disputes or to enforce contractual or civil rights between private parties. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed against discharge of public law functions.”

11. The present dispute, by the petitioner’s own pleading, is with private respondents Nos. 6 and 7 over the plots purchased by her husband and later gifted to her children. The allegations of interference, and attempts to construct on the land are essentially civil in nature.

12. Though it is true that in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh³, the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandated registration of an FIR when information disclosing a cognizable offence is provided, the same judgment also cautioned that disputes which are purely civil in character with criminal overtones must be carefully scrutinized, and the criminal process should not be used to settle private civil disputes.

13.