Where the parties are full-blood brothers disputing residential property and have reached an amicable settlement, the High Court reaffirms that writ petitions are not the appropriate mechanism for resolution; directs parties to seek civil remedies. The judgment affirms and applies existing precedent, confirming the non-interference of writ courts in private civil disputes. Precedent value: binding for all subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23678/2025 of ABDUL MALEK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0472922025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Civil (Property/Family Dispute), Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether civil disputes between family members concerning property, where an alternative remedy exists and settlement has been reached, are maintainable under writ jurisdiction. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature, arising out of a familial property conflict. Since the parties had reached an amicable settlement and a case had already been registered by police under relevant statutory provisions, the court determined that retaining the writ petition served no practical purpose. The court clarified that parties should seek recourse to appropriate civil forums for such disputes, reaffirming the non-maintainability of writ petitions for private civil matters where hierarchy of remedies exists. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The disputed house belonged to the father of both petitioner and respondent no. 7, who are brothers. The petitioner alleged wrongful eviction and restraint by his brother from the property. Police had registered a case under Section 170/126 of the BNSS, and the parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering writ petitions in civil/family property disputes where settlement exists |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that disputes strictly civil in nature, even if involving family property and police intervention, should be taken before appropriate civil forums, not writ courts.
- Notes the court’s recognition of settlement between parties as a ground to dispose of the writ petition.
- Lawyers should avoid filing writ petitions for familial property disputes except where no alternate remedy exists or public law element is involved.
- The existence of police action or criminal complaint is not enough for writ maintainability if the crux is a civil dispute.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court identified the core dispute as entirely civil, stemming from a property conflict between brothers over their late father’s house.
- Acknowledged registration of proceedings under the BNSS by police authorities.
- Noted that an amicable settlement was reached by both parties subsequent to police involvement.
- Held that retaining a writ petition in these circumstances serves no useful purpose, as civil forums offer an adequate remedy.
- Disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach civil courts for redress.
- No factual averments in the writ petition were deemed admitted, as no affidavit was called for.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged wrongful eviction from the first floor of the property by respondent no. 7 (his brother).
- Sought judicial intervention through writ jurisdiction to redress grievance regarding property access.
Respondent (State/Police)
- (Implied) Reported on police action: registration of case under Section 170/126 BNSS.
- Confirmed the existence of an amicable settlement between parties.
Factual Background
The dispute arose between two full-blood brothers regarding residence and access to a house inherited from their father. The petitioner claimed he was driven out of the property by the respondent brother and restrained from entering. Following these events, the police registered a case under Section 170/126 of the BNSS. The court noted that an amicable settlement was reached between the parties.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 170/126 of the BNSS: Police registered a case under these provisions.
- No detailed statutory interpretation or constitutional provision was set out in the judgment; the court focused on the available civil remedy and non-maintainability of writ petitions for pure civil disputes.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; standard practice followed. No novel procedural guidelines or directions issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law is affirmed: writ jurisdiction is not proper for pure civil property/family disputes where remedial civil forums are available and a settlement is achieved.