Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein it declined to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner holding that it was not a fit case to be adjudicated under extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

The matter involved a land dispute. The respondents submitted that the parties were already engaged in civil suits in trial court regarding the same subject matter, which were still pending. However, the petitioner submitted that the land in question involved in the above said civil suits and that in the instant petition were different.

The High Court perused the record and held that the question whether the land involved in the civil suits and the petition was same or not deserved to be adjudicated by the Civil Court concerned. The Court categorically opined that the matters involving the exercise of extensive fact finding can only be undertaken in properly instituted civil suits and not in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner was granted. [Chikkannachari v. Department of PWD, State of Karnataka, WP No. 46292 of 2016, dated 1.2.2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.