Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, N.A.S.Ansari, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a prohibitory relief against the respondents, namely the State of Tamil Nadu, the Divisional Engineer (Highways), the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), and the Inspector of Police. The petitioner claimed to be the lawful owner of a property and sought a direction restraining the respondents from preventing him from constructing on that property. The petitioner relied on a judgment and decree dated 28.04.1995 in O.S.No.34 of 1993 passed by the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, which was upheld by the High Court in A.S.No.1281 of 1995 on 27.11.2009. The court, comprising Justice S.M.Subramaniam and Justice K.Surender, examined the maintainability of the petition. The court held that the relief sought was a negative relief, which is not maintainable under Article 226. The petitioner was essentially seeking execution of a civil decree, which cannot be obtained through writ proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had passed away during the pendency of the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the legal heirs of the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Negative Relief - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a prohibitory writ directing respondents not to prevent construction on his property, which is a negative relief. The court held that such a negative relief is not maintainable under Article 226, as the petitioner essentially seeks execution of a civil decree, which cannot be obtained through writ proceedings. (Paras 2-3) B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Alternative Remedy - O.S.No.34 of 1993 - The petitioner sought to enforce a judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.34 of 1993. The court observed that execution of a civil decree must be pursued through appropriate civil proceedings, not by way of a writ petition under Article 226. (Para 2) C) Practice and Procedure - Death of Petitioner - Legal Heirs - The court noted that the petitioner had passed away during the pendency of the petition. The legal heirs were granted liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law to redress their grievances. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition seeking a prohibitory relief directing respondents not to prevent the petitioner from constructing on his property is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The present Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Legal heirs of the petitioner are at liberty to initiate appropriate action to redress their grievances, if any exists, in the manner known to law.
Law Points
- Negative relief not maintainable under Article 226
- Execution of civil decree cannot be obtained through writ proceedings
- Writ petition for prohibitory relief against construction interference dismissed
