Writ Court Cannot Order Demolition When Land Title Is Disputed And Civil Suits Are Pending: Orissa High Court

"It is well settled that where disputed questions of fact are involved and the parties are already before the Civil Court, the writ court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the demolition of alleged unauthorized constructions when the nature of the land is heavily disputed and civil suits are already pending between the parties.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that ordering the removal of encroachments under such circumstances "would necessarily require this Court to determine disputed questions of fact."

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions against the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) to remove alleged encroachments made by private respondents over two plots of land. While the petitioners claimed the land was a public road and relied on previous CDA demolition notices and measurement reports, the private respondents asserted that the plots were private passages and homestead land. The matter reached the High Court because the CDA had halted enforcement action after a civil court passed a status quo order regarding the disputed property.

The primary question before the court was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce demolition orders when the underlying nature and ownership of the land were strongly contested. The court was also called upon to determine if it could interfere in a matter where parallel civil suits were pending and a civil court had already granted interim protection to the respondents.

Dispute Over Nature Of Land Requires Evidence

At the outset, the court noted that the core controversy revolved around the actual character of the plots in question. The petitioners relied on proceedings under the Odisha Development Authorities Act (ODA Act) to claim the land was a public road, while the opposite parties claimed private ownership based on Records of Rights (ROR). The court noted that such contradictory claims regarding title and passage rights cannot be resolved simply through writ proceedings.

Civil Court Has Already Taken Cognizance

The bench emphasized that multiple civil suits regarding the same dispute were already pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Cuttack. Justice Mishra highlighted that the civil court had already examined documents like RORs, measurement reports, and demolition notices, subsequently directing the parties to maintain the status quo. The civil court had also explicitly restrained the CDA from acting upon the recent measurement report.

Refraining From Conflicting Directions

Acknowledging the subsisting restraint order from the lower court, the High Court observed that the civil judge had rightly taken cognizance of the disputes regarding the right of passage and the correctness of the measurements. Justice Mishra noted that the civil court had "thought it fit to grant interim protection pending adjudication of the rights of the parties." Consequently, the High Court determined it must avoid issuing any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution that would conflict with the ongoing civil trial.

Evidentiary Value Of Measurement Reports

Addressing the petitioners' reliance on various joint measurement reports, the court pointed out that the very correctness of these measurements was under challenge in the civil suits. The court noted that deciding whether the earlier directions to consider both existing and non-existing maps were followed would require a deep dive into fact-finding. The bench stated that such a dispute "cannot be resolved without appreciation of evidence, including examination of revenue records, maps and other documents by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction."

Scope Of Writ Jurisdiction Limited

Concluding its analysis, the court reiterated the established legal doctrine that the High Court is not the appropriate forum to settle complex factual disputes regarding property rights. Justice Mishra emphasized that when parallel machinery has been invoked, the writ court must exercise restraint and allow the trial court to evaluate the evidence.

"issuance of a writ of mandamus directing demolition or removal of alleged encroachment would necessarily require this Court to determine disputed questions of fact."

The High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petitions without issuing any directions for the removal of the alleged encroachment. The court granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the civil court in the pending suits to seek appropriate relief based on the materials and evidence available.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026