M M wk: ¥ww2§° f a} D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (C) No. WE‘é / 201 1 PETITIONER / Alimuddin S/o. Shri Guiam Rasul, aged about 45 years, R/o. Viilage Balrampur, RS. & Tahsil— Bairampur, Distt, ‘Surguja (C.G.) X‘)## ‘AAg VERSUS / '1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt‘Raipur— (C.G.) Collector, Surguja Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Tahsildar — Balrampur, Tahsil Oitice Bahampur, Distt. Surguja - (C.G.‘) Divisional Officer, 4. Sub Department of Rural Engineering Service Depatment, Balrampun Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE y—me‘‘Ak CONSTITUTICN OF INDIA @Qa a?!‘ ‘ natitiamha \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIASP @ PETITIONER Alimuddin Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri AN. Pandey, Advocate for line petitioner. Shri V.V.S .Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State. (Passed e this 30 day or November, 201. 1.) Leamed counsel aopearing for the petitione submit that th respondent No.4 has begi construction o th land belonging t t petitioner. In support of his case, he has tiled certain revenu» records. Shri Mrthy, learne y. Advocate enera ispute th ontentio o the grond that en a copy of the leas has not been tile indicatin that the petitione as granted lease and, as suc, on th basi of certain revenue recors, it cannot be held that the petitione is lease holder or owner of the property in sput. Shri Murthy, furthe ubmits that this involves disuted uestio of facts in respec of th sh e After hearing learned ounsel appearinor the parties, perused the documents. i is found tha eve a copy of the ease has not bee annexed with the petition. photocopy of the revenue records, wherein! there is a mention of lease deed that may not be conclusive and, as such, the disputed question of facts in respect of. the ownership of the. property, cannot be decided by this Court in. exercise of extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Supreme Court. in Shalini Sheity & Another v. Rajendra shankar Patil1, observed asunder: u d D Gl d e cn n ‘ u ev e d g r w h e s d r a die r s p qn t e ownerip and lease of thy petitioner. c gf t t n l n A “59. lt has repeatedly been held by this Court that a proceedin under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of property disputes or disputes relatingto title. ln Mohd. Hanif v. State of-Assam \ a’ihree Judge Bench of this Court, explaining the jgeneral principles governing writ jurisdiction ‘\‘; , . .. V 9 " (201p) a $0932 .j \ LUR ORDER n '" r s e n n e o he e 2 under Ariicie 226 bald that this iurisdictinn is extranrdinary in éature and is nét meant for V130 declaring ihe privaie righis of ihe paliies.’(See SCC p. 786. para 5 of ihe Repon). In coming to the aforesaid ccndusinn in Hanif, this Court referred i0 ihe Constiiuiion Bench decision in T.C.Basappa v. T. Nagappa. 60. Following the aforesaid principles in Hanif, this Ceurt in Hindustan Stee! Lid v. Kalyani Baneijee heid that serious question aboui iitle and posseesion of land cannot be dealt with by writ court !n formulating these principles in Kaiyani Baneq’ee, this Court relied on the Constituiion Bench decision in Sohan La! (see SCC e. 232, “are 16 cf the Reperi.) 61. Again in State oiRajasthan v, Bhawani Singh this saint heid that a writ petiiion is not the appropriate forum to dedare a person’s title io property. (See SCC p. 309. para 7 of the Report.) 62. Subsequently. again in Molten Pandey v, Usha Rani Rajgaria, this Court heid that a regular , suit is the appropriate remedy for deciding property disputeslbetweenpriva‘te persons and remedy underfAriicie 226 is net avaiieble to decide such dispuies unless there is violation of some statutory duty on the party of a statutory auihority. (See p. 53, para 6 of the Repert). 63. Following the aforesaid ratio in Mohan Pandey, this Court again in Prasanna Kumar Roy Kafmakar V. State of W.B., held that in a dispute between the land lord and tenant. a tenant cannot be evicted tram his possession by a writ court Again in RRMurtiai'raran v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Fadar, this Court held that it would be an abuse of process to approach a writ court in connection with dispute on questions of title for deciding which the civil court is the appropriate terurn.” 5. Thus. the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to competent jurisdictional civil Court, it so advised, for appropriate relief and thereafter, if an application is made for mutation that may. be considered and decided in accordance with law. Sd/_ Satish K. Agnihotr‘: Judge / molt