Writ jurisdiction and disputed title to property cannot displace an efficacious civil remedy for ownership determination.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable to quash recovery proceedings and attachment of property where the petitioner's title was disputed. The Court treated the real ownership issue, including the allegation of benami holding, as a disputed question of fact that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence in writ proceedings. It also noted that an efficacious civil suit was available for determination of title and consequential relief. The objection to recovery by the Additional Collector was not entertained at that stage, and the statutory scheme allowed authorised exercise of the Collector's powers. The attachment challenge was rejected, and the parties were left to pursue civil remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained to quash recovery proceedings and attachment of property when the petitioner's title was disputed and an efficacious civil remedy was available.

Analysis: The challenge to the recovery action was founded on the assertion that the attached house belonged to the petitioner personally and could not be proceeded against for sales tax dues of the firm. The Court held that the question whether the petitioner was the real owner or merely a benamidar for her husband was a disputed question of fact, which could not be satisfactorily decided on affidavits in writ proceedings. It further noted that the petitioner had an appropriate and efficacious remedy by way of a civil suit for title and consequential relief. The additional jurisdictional objection regarding recovery by the Additional Collector was not permitted to be raised at that stage, and in any event the statutory scheme contemplated exercise of the Collector's powers by an Additional Collector when duly authorised.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on these facts, and the objection to the attachment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and left the parties to pursue ordinary civil remedies for determination of title.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition will not be entertained to decide a disputed question of title to property, especially where an equally efficacious civil remedy is available and the issue cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone.

---