Article 226 limits on title disputes: writ relief is unsuitable for deciding possession and title against a private allottee.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate forum for resolving disputed title or ordering restoration of possession of immovable property where rival claims, legality of allotment, and transfer of possession require factual and legal adjudication better suited to a civil suit. Mandamus generally lies to enforce a public duty, not to disturb a private possessor who entered under an apparent allotment unless collusion or a colourable transaction is shown. Even if the earlier eviction was illegal for non-compliance with the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, that does not by itself justify writ relief against a private allottee without proof of complicity in the illegality.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be used to decide disputed title and direct restoration of possession of immovable property; (ii) whether mandamus or a similar writ could be issued against a private person in possession of the property in the absence of collusion with the State.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be used to decide disputed title and direct restoration of possession of immovable property

Analysis: The relief sought required determination of rival claims to title, the legality of allotment, and the circumstances in which possession passed from one claimant to another. Those matters involved disputed questions of fact and law, and their resolution would be necessary before any direction for restoration of possession could be made. Such an enquiry was held to be more appropriate for a properly constituted civil suit than for proceedings under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for adjudicating the disputed title and ordering restoration of possession.

Issue (ii): whether mandamus or a similar writ could be issued against a private person in possession of the property in the absence of collusion with the State

Analysis: The eviction of the earlier occupant was held to be illegal because it contravened the mandatory requirements of Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950. Even so, the property had passed into the possession of a private allottee under an apparently regular allotment, and there was no finding of collusion or knowledge of illegality on his part. A writ of mandamus normally lies to compel performance of a public duty, not to disturb the possession of a private individual who has entered under an apparent authority, unless the transaction is shown to be merely colourable or collusive.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus could properly be issued against the private possessor on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's direction for restoration of possession under Article 226 could not be sustained, and the dispute had to be worked out, if at all, in ordinary civil proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where effective relief depends on adjudication of disputed title and possession, and the property is held by a private person without proved collusion or colourable transfer, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not be used to determine title or compel restoration of possession.

---