Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Family Dispute Not Grounds for Writ Jurisdiction”: High Court Dismisses Retired Air Commodore’s Plea Against MP Brother

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Patna has dismissed a writ application filed by a retired Air Commodore, who alleged misuse of CRPF personnel by his brother, a sitting Member of Parliament, in a family property dispute. Honourable Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha declared, “the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of reliefs, claimed by him, requiring interference by this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”

The case centered on the petitioner's claim that he was wrongfully denied access to his ancestral home by CRPF personnel acting under the directions of his brother, respondent no. 7. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention, asserting a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

In response to the dismissal, the court underscored the existence of alternative civil remedies for property disputes. Justice Sinha noted, “the High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available.” The judgment emphasizes that while the High Court’s jurisdiction is wide, it is not an alternative for relief obtainable through a suit or other statutory provisions.

The court further observed that the alleged Interference by CRPF personnel did not constitute a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, stating, “dignity of the petitioner has not been violated/interfered with and/or tarnished either by the CRPF personnel deployed at the residence of respondent no. 7 at Amnour or by respondent no. 7 himself.”

This decision reaffirms the principle that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving private property disputes that are adequately addressed by civil law procedures. The court’s findings have profound implications for the jurisprudence of property rights and the scope of writ jurisdiction in the context of familial property disputes.

Date of Decision: 03-11-2023

AIR COMMODORE RANDHIR PRATAP VS THE UNION OF INDIA

Latest Legal News