Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pushpalata Gopal Worlikar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the police authorities (respondent Nos.1 to 3) to remove respondent Nos.4 to 6 from a shop premises (Shop No.1 in house No.460, Ramchandra Poshu Chawl, Bhagat Gully, Worli, Koliwada, Mumbai). The petitioner claimed ownership of the shop and stated that she had initially filed a civil suit for possession, in which a decree was passed in her favour. She alleged that she executed the decree and obtained possession, but later respondent No.4 trespassed back into the premises with the alleged help of police constables. Consequently, she filed the present writ petition impleading police officers and the trespassers, praying for police assistance to remove them. The police department resisted the petition through an affidavit-in-reply filed by Police Sub-Inspector Ramesh Mahadev Waghmare, who stated that as per records, possession was taken in execution of the decree in RE Suit No. 1377/4520/1993 on 29th September 2002, and that the police had no role in any subsequent trespass. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, observed that the dispute essentially involved private property rights and alleged trespass after execution of a decree. The Court held that such a dispute cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as it requires adjudication of disputed questions of fact regarding possession and trespass. The Court noted that the petitioner's remedy lies in approaching the civil court for appropriate relief, such as filing a fresh suit for possession or seeking remedies under the Specific Relief Act or the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also found no merit in the allegation that police officials aided the trespass, as the police affidavit denied any such involvement. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue civil remedies.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Private Property Dispute - The petitioner sought a writ directing police to remove respondents from a shop claiming they trespassed after execution of a decree for possession. The Court held that Article 226 cannot be invoked for private disputes over possession, and the petitioner must approach the civil court for relief against alleged trespass. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Execution of Decree - Trespass - Civil Remedy - The petitioner obtained a decree for possession in RE Suit No. 1377/4520/1993 and claimed that after execution, respondent No.4 trespassed with police help. The Court found that the police affidavit denied any role and that the dispute was essentially civil, requiring the petitioner to file a fresh suit or seek appropriate civil remedies. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct police authorities to remove alleged trespassers from private property and deliver possession to the petitioner, when the petitioner already obtained a decree for possession and claims subsequent trespass.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief regarding the alleged trespass.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not for private property disputes
- police cannot be directed to deliver possession without court order
- remedy lies in civil court for trespass after execution of decree
