Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking police action against private individuals allegedly obstructing construction under the Awas Yojona scheme. The petitioner had prayed for several writs, including mandamus for arrest of private respondents and injunctions to restrain obstruction. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the writ petition was a misuse of Article 226 of the Constitution, since the dispute was private in nature and already before the civil court. The Court observed that it is for the civil court to direct enforcement of its orders, not for the High Court to supervise such matters under its constitutional jurisdiction.
Facts
The petitioner claimed ownership over a parcel of land and was constructing a house under the Awas Yojona scheme, as evidenced by a government-issued installment of Rs. 60,000. Alleging interference by private individuals and inaction by police, the petitioner approached the civil court which granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the petitioner’s possession. Despite communicating the order to police, the petitioner claimed that officers failed to prevent obstruction and allegedly sided with the private respondents. The petitioner then moved the High Court seeking mandamus and other reliefs against the police and private parties.
Issues
- Whether the High Court can compel police authorities under Article 226 to enforce a civil court’s interim order.
- Whether the dispute in question, being private in nature, warrants interference under the writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner’s resort to Article 226 amounted to an abuse of process when civil remedies were already pursued.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the police authorities failed to comply with the civil court’s order, thereby enabling private respondents to obstruct the construction. It was contended that the inaction by police violated the petitioner’s right to property and required intervention by the High Court to ensure compliance with the civil court’s interim order. The petitioner also emphasized the urgency due to the nature of the housing scheme and repeated representations to law enforcement.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that both the petitioner and the private respondents had initiated criminal proceedings, and that due process had been followed. In Chapra P.S. Case No.116 of 2025, initiated by the private respondents, the police had filed a charge sheet. Police inquiries revealed forced construction on disputed land, with the petitioner failing to produce original title documents. Proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were initiated against private respondents. The police denied any overreach or collusion, asserting that actions taken were lawful and neutral.
Analysis of the Law
The Court underscored the settled principle that enforcement of civil court orders lies within the jurisdiction of the civil court itself, and not through writ jurisdiction. Article 226 is reserved for public law violations and cannot be used to resolve personal disputes. The petitioner’s invocation of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, despite obtaining interim civil relief, was deemed an attempt to circumvent the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s rulings in:
- Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616: Reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not meant for adjudication of private disputes between individuals.
- Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, 1996 (3) SCC 403: Emphasized limits of Article 226 in civil property disputes.
- Rashina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329: Held that writ courts should not intervene in civil matters pending before civil courts.
- P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501: Warned against using Article 226 to secure police assistance in property disputes.
The Calcutta High Court further cited its own decisions in Maharani Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 1999 SCC OnLine Cal 387 and Mohinul Haque v. State of West Bengal, 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 369, which reaffirmed the same principles.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that there was no warrant for intervention under Article 226 when the civil court had already granted the petitioner relief. The writ petition was seen as a strategy to sidestep established civil procedures. The Court noted: “The petitioner has circumvented the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and attempted to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226… for the purpose of depriving the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction.” It found the petitioner’s grievance unsubstantiated and an abuse of constitutional remedy.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as an abuse of process, holding that civil court directions must be enforced through appropriate applications before that forum and not via constitutional writ jurisdiction. It declined to grant any relief and imposed no costs.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that Article 226 cannot be used as a shortcut for private disputes, particularly those already before a civil court. It underscores the importance of respecting procedural hierarchies and limits of constitutional jurisdiction. The decision also clarifies that police action to enforce civil orders must stem from explicit directions by the civil court and not from High Court writs.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
- Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2009) 5 SCC 616: Declared that writs under Article 226 cannot be used in purely private disputes.
- P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar (2006) 4 SCC 501: Warned against writ petitions seeking police protection in property matters.
- Mohinul Haque v. State of West Bengal 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 369: Held that Article 226 should not override civil court processes.
- Maharani Mondal v. State of West Bengal 1999 SCC OnLine Cal 387: Reaffirmed non-interference of writ courts in private land disputes.
FAQs
1. Can High Courts under Article 226 compel police to enforce civil court orders?
No, civil court orders must be enforced by applications before that very court. High Courts cannot be used to supervise enforcement of such private orders through writ jurisdiction.
2. What is the remedy when private parties obstruct construction despite a civil injunction?
The proper course is to move the civil court for execution or contempt proceedings. Approaching the High Court under Article 226 in such cases is considered misuse of jurisdiction.
3. What did the Calcutta High Court say about invoking writ jurisdiction in private land disputes?
The Court emphasized that “the jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.” Private land disputes must be resolved through civil remedies, not constitutional writs.
