Chennai, Aug 3 (UNI) Madras High Court has ruled that within the circumspect nature of jurisdiction of a writ court, finding about the nature of a property right should not be arrived at, nor any finding about the parties committing criminal trespass should be ventured.
Such questions should be left to be decided by the appropriate forum created under the law, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A K Ganguly and Justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla observed, while passing orders on a writ appeal, preferred by one Pushparaj, challenging a single Judge order, allowing police protection to the petitioners to enjoy the property purchased by them in Vadanemili Village of Kancheepuram District.
In the Judgment, the Bench said it was clear that the single Judge of the writ court had sought to decide the property rights of the contesting parties in respect of a piece of land. The Judge gave an interim direction permitting the petitioner to put up structures on the land in question.
The Bench said the counsel for the parties had submitted that there were civil suits pending between them and also a civil court decree.
''It was clear that in the instant case, police protection had been prayed for and the same had been granted by the single Judge by an interim order in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of his property right. Such an order could not be sustained,'' the Judges said citing a Supreme Court decision.
The parties were at liberty to work out heir remedies before the civil court, the Judges held.
UNI XR SJ SV NS1154