Article 226 relief requires a proved legal right; mere possession cannot sustain writ protection when title remains disputed.

Article 226 relief depends on a demonstrated legal right and its illegal invasion or threatened infringement. Where title or proprietary entitlement is disputed and has not been adjudicated, writ proceedings are not the proper forum to protect possession alone. Mere long possession does not, by itself, create an enforceable right against the State, especially where the possession is traceable to a resumable grant. Interim protection cannot replace adjudication of the substantive right, and the writ could not be sustained without a proved legal right in favour of the respondents.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be issued to protect the respondents' possession when the existence of their title or legal right in the property was disputed and had not been adjudicated.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, but the existence of a legal right and its illegal invasion or threat is the foundation for relief. Where the High Court declined to decide the controversy as to title in writ proceedings, the respondents could not rely on an unestablished proprietary claim to sustain the writ. Mere long possession, by itself, does not create a right against the State if the possession is traceable to a resumable grant. Relief in writ jurisdiction cannot be granted on the basis of possession alone where the right to remain in possession depends on determination of the terms and resumability of the grant. Interim protection cannot be granted as a substitute for adjudication of the substantive right.

Conclusion: The writ could not be sustained in the absence of a proved legal right in favour of the respondents, and the appeals were entitled to succeed.

---