# MOHAN PANDEY AND ANOTHER v. SMT. USHA RANI RAJGARIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1992] 3 S.C.R. 904
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1992-08-19
- **Case number:** Civil· Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1991
- **Bench:** Laut Mohan Sharma, S. Ranganathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohan-pandey-and-another-v-smt-usha-rani-rajgaria-and-ors-11519
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 22fr-Writ jurisdiction of High Cou~Special and extraordinary-Not to be exercised casually and lightly-Not to be used for enforcement
C of a private right to immovable property claimed by and against private
individuals-Not to replace ordinary remedies available by way of suit, application etc. under the general law.
During the pendency of a suit for. eviction of t'~e appellants from the
D property of Respondent No.1, the appellants were· alleged to have
trespassed beyond the area which was the subject matter of the suit and
indulged in several illegal activities. Thus according to Respondents, the
appellants were guilty of mischievous conduct. The Respondents instead
of filing a suit in the Civil Court or making appropriate prayer for
amendment of the plaint in the pending suit filed a Writ Petition before
E
the Hi~ Court for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the
appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents. The
Administration and Commissioner of Police were also impleaded as par·
ties and a direction sought against them not to register any further false
and vexatious complaints against the Respondents since undue Police
F
help to the appellants was apprehended.
The High Court gave certain directions to the appellants as regards
Respondents'/) access to the backyard. The present appeai by special
leave, is against the said orders of the High Court.
G
On the question whether the Writ jurisdiction of High Court would
be available for enforcement of a private right to immovable property
claimed by and against private individuals:
Allowing the appeals, this Court
H
HELD : 1. A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for setdement
904
}
--<
~
MOHAN PANDEY v. SMT. USHA RAJGARIA [SHARMA, J.]
905
of disputes relating to property rights between private persons a~d that A
the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available
except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory
authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate
direction to the authority concerned. (907 E,F]
2. If the real grievance of Respondent No.1 is' against the initiation B
of criminal proceeding and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she
must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal
Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general
law, civil or cirminal, are available. It is not intended to repl~ce the C
ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant.
The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised
casually or lightly. (907 F-H]

## Text

A
MOHAN PANDEY AND ANOTHER
v.
SMT. USHA RANI RAJGARIA AND ORS.
AUGUST 19, 1992
B
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 22fr-Writ jurisdiction of High Cou~Special and extraordinary-Not to be exercised casually and lightly-Not to be used for enforcement
C of a private right to immovable property claimed by and against private
individuals-Not to replace ordinary remedies available by way of suit, application etc. under the general law.
During the pendency of a suit for. eviction of t'~e appellants from the
D property of Respondent No.1, the appellants were· alleged to have
trespassed beyond the area which was the subject matter of the suit and
indulged in several illegal activities. Thus according to Respondents, the
appellants were guilty of mischievous conduct. The Respondents instead
of filing a suit in the Civil Court or making appropriate prayer for
amendment of the plaint in the pending suit filed a Writ Petition before
E
the Hi~ Court for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the
appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents. The
Administration and Commissioner of Police were also impleaded as par·
ties and a direction sought against them not to register any further false
and vexatious complaints against the Respondents since undue Police
F
help to the appellants was apprehended.
The High Court gave certain directions to the appellants as regards
Respondents'/) access to the backyard. The present appeai by special
leave, is against the said orders of the High Court.
G
On the question whether the Writ jurisdiction of High Court would
be available for enforcement of a private right to immovable property
claimed by and against private individuals:
Allowing the appeals, this Court
H
HELD : 1. A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for setdement
904
}
--<
~
MOHAN PANDEY v. SMT. USHA RAJGARIA [SHARMA, J.]
905
of disputes relating to property rights between private persons a~d that A
the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available
except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory
authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate
direction to the authority concerned. (907 E,F]
2. If the real grievance of Respondent No.1 is' against the initiation B
of criminal proceeding and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she
must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal
Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general
law, civil or cirminal, are available. It is not intended to repl~ce the C
ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant.
The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised
casually or lightly. (907 F-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3284 of D
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1992 of the Delhi High
Court in Civil· Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1991.
R.K. Garg, K.L. Vohra, Rajeev Sharma and D.K. Garg ~or the E
Appellants.
Arun Jaitley, V.B. Saharya, Ashok Bhan and B.K. Prasad for the
Respondents.
!
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
I
SHARMA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave
is granted.
2. The respondents in this appeal have successfully invoked the G
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for
-/!
enforcement of a private right to immoveable property against the appellants who are two brothers and who are resisting the claim. The qqestion
is as to whether the writ jurisdiction in the· High Court is available for
the enforcement of such a right claimed by and against private individuals. H
A
B
c
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992) 3 S.C.R.
3. The dispute relates to a house-property in Delhi. A suit for
eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial court.
According to the case of the respondent no.1, who is the owner of the
propmty, she had let out the same to one Shri B.K. Pandey who later
illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant no.1. According to the further ~se of the respondent, the portion of the said houseproperty which is the subject matter of the present case is beyond the
purview of the pending suit. The occassion for initiating the present
proceeding with respect to this portion fll'Ose, it is said, on a<μ>unt of the
high-handedness of the appellants who ill~lly trespassed beyond the area
which is the subject matter of the pending suit, and indulged in several
illegal activities. In other words, the appellants are trespassers and are
guilty of mischievous conduct. However, instead of filing a suit in the civil
court or making an appropriate prayer for amendment of her plaint in the
pending suit, she through respondent no.2 holding power of attorney,
approached the High Court directly. by a writ petition under Article 226
D for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents. The Delhi Administration
and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, were also impleaded as parties with
a prayer that appropriate order should be issued against them also and
E
they should be directed not to register any further false and vexatious
complaint against them at the instance of the appellants. It is her case that
the appellants have been getting undue police help and are being encouraged to commence frivolous criminal cases against respondent no. 1
and her agent.
F
4. The appellants denied the allegations of fact made against them
G
H
and also challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.
5. Although the fact that a suit between the parties was already
pending in the civil court was known to the High Court, it proceeded to
pass a short order stating ;
"There is already a civil suit pending between the parties.
Except the prayer in regard to access to the backyard, no other
~
relief can be granted in this writ petition.
We direct respondents 3 and 4 to remove the grill for access
-
..
MOHAN PANDEYv. SMT. USHA RAJGARIA [SHARMA, J.J
907
to the backyard in the presence of the police and respresentaA
tives of the petitioners on Sunday, 23rd February 1992 at 11.00
a.m. so that the access of the petitioner to the servants quarters
is not stopped."
6. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that B
prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondent nos. 1 and 2 was also made. It has
to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondent nos. 3 and
4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned orde,r,
considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for C
removal of the grills for access to the backyard. According to the stand of
the landlord-respondent, since the police were taking a partisan attitude
against her, the filing of a writ petition became necessary. We are unable
to follow this argument. There is no doubt that the dispute is between two
private persons with respect to an immoveable property. Further, .a suit D
covering either directly a portion of the house-property which is in dispute
in the present case or in any event some other parts of the same property
is already pending in the civil court. The respondent justifies the step
1
1 of
her moving the High Court with a writ petition on the ground of some
complaint made by the appellants and the action by the police t~en . E
thereon. We do not agree that on account of this development, the respondent was entitled to maintain a writ petition before the High Court. It has
repeatedly been held by this court as also by various High Courts tha~ a
regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating
to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under
Article 226 of the constitution shall not be available except where violation F
of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And
in such a case, the court will issue appropriate direction to the authority
concerned. If th.e real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation
of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon,
she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the cr•al G
procedure code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general
law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the
ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant.
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992] 3 S.C.R.
A
The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised
casually or lightly. We, therefore, hold that the High Collrt was in error in
issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgment
under appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment
is set aside and the writ petition ohhe respondents filed in the High Court
B
is dismissed. There will be no order' as to costs.
G.N.
Appeals allowed.
J
+-.