Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8844 of 2020, reaffirmed that questions of property ownership (title) and possession cannot be decided through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court dismissed the petition filed by three individuals who claimed ownership and occupation of a two-storey building in Motihari, East Champaran, which the State and certain private individuals asserted was a Dharamshala (public trust property).

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions to the District Magistrate and police authorities to restore their possession over the disputed property and to restrain interference by the administration.

Background of the Case

The dispute centered on plots numbered 474, 472, 475, 447, 458, 459, 466, 470, 461, 462, and 471 under Khata No. 122 in Motihari. The petitioners claimed that these plots had been transferred to the grandmother of the first petitioner through registered sale deeds in 1940s, and subsequently, their family had possessed and developed the property. A two-storey building was constructed in 1965 and operated under the name Marwari Vivah Bhawan for social events such as marriages and seminars.

According to the petitioners, after the death of their grandmother and father, they continued to own and manage the premises. They denied the existence of any Dharamshala over the property. The building was rented out to tenants, including two of the petitioners, under valid rent agreements executed in 2016 and 2019.

However, a group of individuals (Deepak Agarwal and Anil Agarwal) later claimed that the premises was a Dharamshala donated to the Marwari Samaj through an unregistered Samarpannama (deed of dedication) dated 8 April 1952 by the same grandmother. On that basis, they filed Title Suit No. 176 of 2020 seeking a declaration that the property was a public trust.

The petitioners alleged that under political influence, the District Magistrate and Circle Officer forcibly evicted them from the premises on 30 July 2020 without due process. They claimed that their belongings were thrown out on the road, and later, the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts declared the property a public trust and ordered its registration.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners contended through their counsel that:

• They possessed valid ownership documents dating back several decades.
• The eviction was illegal and arbitrary, carried out without notice or judicial order.
• The administration acted under political pressure at the behest of influential persons connected to the Marwari Samaj.
• Their right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution had been violated.

They sought restoration of possession and a direction restraining the authorities from interfering with their property except in accordance with law.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State, represented by the Government Counsel, argued that:

• The petitioners’ claims involved disputed questions of title and ownership, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding.
• A title suit was already pending before a competent civil court regarding the same property.
• The High Court, under Article 226, cannot decide factual disputes requiring examination of evidence.

Observations and Reasoning of the Court

Hon’ble Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh noted that the writ petition itself admitted the pendency of a title suit regarding the same property, where one party claimed it was a Dharamshala and the other claimed private ownership. The Court observed that such disputes necessarily require evaluation of evidence, witness testimony, and documentary verification, which is beyond the limited jurisdiction of a writ court.

The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments to reinforce this principle:

1. Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammad (AIR 1961 SC 1526) – The Supreme Court held that questions involving disputed facts should be determined through a regular civil suit, not a writ petition.
2. D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation (AIR 1976 SC 386) – The Court held that when basic facts are disputed and complex issues of law and fact arise, the writ court is not the proper forum for relief.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh (1993 Supp (1) SCC 306) – The Supreme Court ruled that disputes of ownership or title cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ proceedings.
4. State of Bihar v. Chandrabanshi Singh (2015 SCC OnLine Pat 10048) – The Patna High Court reiterated that ownership disputes must be proved in a proper civil suit.

Relying on these authorities, the Patna High Court concluded that:

• Determining whether the petitioners had valid title or whether the property was a public trust would require evidence and findings of fact, which cannot be undertaken in a writ petition.
• Since the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts had already declared the property as a public trust, and the civil suit was pending, the appropriate forum for adjudication was the civil court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Court’s Clarification

The Court made it explicitly clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of either party’s claim over ownership or possession. The petitioners were given liberty to pursue their claims before the competent civil court or any other appropriate forum under law.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment underscores an important procedural principle in Indian law:

• Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to decide property ownership disputes.
  Questions involving title, possession, or ownership—especially where facts are contested—must be adjudicated through a civil suit where evidence can be examined.
• It reaffirms judicial restraint in using constitutional remedies for matters that are essentially private or civil in nature.
• The case also highlights that even when administrative actions like eviction appear harsh or politically influenced, the remedy lies in approaching the correct legal forum, not in bypassing the civil courts.

For the public, this decision serves as a reminder that land and property disputes must be pursued through regular civil proceedings, and that High Courts will not interfere under Article 226 unless there is clear violation of legal or constitutional rights beyond factual controversy.

Legal Issues Decided and Court’s Decision

• Issue: Can ownership and possession disputes involving private property and public trust claims be adjudicated through a writ petition under Article 226?
  Decision: No. Such disputes must be resolved in a civil court.
• Issue: Whether the eviction of the petitioners was illegal and whether the High Court should restore their possession.
  Decision: The High Court refused to intervene, noting the matter was sub judice before a competent civil court.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammad, AIR 1961 SC 1526
• D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR 1976 SC 386
• State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306
• State of Bihar v. Chandrabanshi Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 10048

Case Title

• Petitioners v. State of Bihar & Others (Patna High Court)

Case Number

• Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8844 of 2020

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 413

Coram and Names of Judges

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For Petitioners: Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate
• For Respondents (State): Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan, SC-1

Link to Judgment

MTUjODg0NCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-b0V4vFpg8Qk=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.