Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. while dismissing the petition, observed that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of filing a Civil Suit against illegal possession of the land.

In the instant case, reliefs in the nature of writ of certiorari was sought to be issued to declare the construction over the land in dispute by the respondent private party be illegal unauthorized and encroachment, writ of prohibition was sought to be issued to prevent the respondent private party to raise further construction over the disputed property and writ of mandamus was sought to be issued to dismantle the unauthorized construction and to remove the restriction/hindrance caused in the way of the petitioners in approaching the property.

Counsel for the petitioners, Balwant Singh Kushwah submitted that Respondent 6, i.e., Additional Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, had encroached upon the land belonging to the petitioners and no action from the authorities was taken. It was further submitted that the right to hold the property is a fundamental right and, therefore, this petition is maintainable.

After analyzing the submissions of the petitioner, the Court observed that the right to hold a property is not a fundamental right. Moreover, this petition is against an individual in his personal capacity not in the capacity of Additional Director General of Police.

It was also submitted by the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner 2 had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunctions for some other plots which the respondent 6 had encroached upon, in which the respondent no.6 was restrained from interfering with the possession, but in the circumstance where the respondent 6 had dispossessed husband of the petitioner 2, this cannot be considered as an efficacious remedy. Furthermore, a writ petition is not maintainable against a private individual. [Laxmi Devi v. State of MP, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 3629, decided on 25-11-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners claiming that the Additional Director General of Police was unlawfully encroaching upon their land. 

The petitioners had claimed that they had approached the relevant authorities, but no action was taken by them. They subsequently filed a writ petition praying the Court to declare the construction over the land in dispute by the respondent as illegal, unauthorized, and encroachment. They prayed for dismantling the unauthorized construction of the hotel building and to remove the restriction/hindrance caused in the way of the petitioners in approaching the property.

The Counsel for the petitioners, Balwant Singh Kushwah, argued that the right to hold the property was a fundamental right and, therefore, the petition was maintainable. It is also submitted that the respondent had also encroached upon some other plots and accordingly, the husband of the petitioner had also filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunctions. By an order dated 30-06-2014 passed in a Civil Suit, the respondent was restrained from interfering with the possession, however, the respondent had dispossessed the husband of the petitioner, therefore the suit would not be an efficacious remedy. It was further submitted that the husband of the petitioner had not filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Furthermore, there was no averment in the petition that the order stated above had attained finality.

The Court, however, held that it was incorrect to state that, “right to hold a property is a fundamental right”. They explained that the petition was filed primarily against the respondent in his individual personal capacity and not against any act done by him in the capacity of Additional Director General of Police. It is a well-established principle of law that the writ petition against a private individual is not maintainable. If the petitioner was of the view that the respondent was illegally trying to encroach upon the land or had illegally taken possession of the said land, then they always have an efficacious remedy of filing a Civil Suit. The Court was of the opinion that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. [Laxmi Devi v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 3629, decided on 25-11-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Anu Malhotra, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rejected.

The petitioner had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs 25 lakhs along with pendente lite and future interest against the respondent. In the plaint, it was categorically submitted by the petitioner that that the loan disbursed to the defendant was a friendly loan. In the application filed under the rule mentioned above, the petitioner submitted that ‘the previous counsel had inadvertently made the title of the suit wrongly as the loan was advanced through the company therefore the suit was to be in the name of the company’. The trial court, vide the order impugned rejected the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved thus, the instant petition was filed. It was submitted by the petitioner that it was only a typographical error and the amendment sought would not in any manner change the nature of the suit.

The High Court perused the record, considered the submissions, and was of the view that the petition could not be allowed. According to the Court, it was rightly observed by the trial court that through the application under Order VI Rule 17, the petitioner herein sought to convert the suit filed by a private individual into a suit filed by a private limited company and thus the prayer could not be allowed. The High Court found no infirmity in the order impugned. Resultantly, the Court dismissed the petition and disallowed the accompanying applications. [Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10730, dated 20-08-2018]