Jammu, July 18: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in matters involving purely private civil disputes where no element of public law is involved.
Justice Sanjay Parihar made the observation while dismissing a writ petition in which the petitioners had sought directions to the revenue authorities for demarcation of a disputed parcel of land.
The Court noted that the dispute was already pending before a competent Civil Court, which had passed an interim order directing both parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court observed that the controversy raised by the petitioners was essentially a private civil dispute between the parties and did not involve any public law element warranting the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Court held that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel the revenue authorities to undertake demarcation when the Civil Court was already seized of the matter and had passed an interim order governing the rights of the parties.
Justice Parihar further observed that the revenue authorities could not be faulted for declining to carry out the demarcation in view of the subsisting status quo order issued by the Civil Court.
The High Court also pointed out that the petitioners had an effective and adequate alternative remedy before the trial court, which was fully empowered under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to issue appropriate directions, including the appointment of a commissioner for local inspection or demarcation of the disputed property.
Holding that the writ petition was an attempt to bypass the statutory remedy available before the Civil Court, the High Court dismissed the petition while granting liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before the trial court in accordance with law.
The Court passed no order as to costs. (KNC)
