Petitioners Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR 1. Wxit Petiu'on (C) No. 235 of 2008 Versus 1 . Shirmautjn Baj, W/o Jagannath, aged about 60 Yrs. R/o Village Hatha Dandu, Tahsil Sn Police Station Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Present R/o Chingrajpaxa, near of Kali Mandir, Bilaspur, Tah. 8a Distt. Bilaspur 0G, Khediya Bai, W/o Late Shri Sada, aged about 80 yrs. R/o Chuchrungpur, Tahsil Kavardha, Dist. Kavardha (C.G.) Mohanlal, S/o Fagua, aged about 54 y‘rs. R/o Hathadadu, ’I‘ahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Hixmat Bai, W/ o Late Manrakhan, aged about 63 yrs, R/o Thengabhat, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaxy, Depaltment of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C. G.). State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Tahsildar, through Tahsil Simga, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Mohna, S/o Jhaggar Ganda, R/o Village Lavar, Tahsil Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Maniram, S/o Khorbahra, R/o Village Lavar Tahsil Balodabazar, DiStt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihohi J.) Shri Prakash Tiwan', Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. Shm' Amit Shanna, Advocate for the respondents No. 4 &. 5. Heard. The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of Mahangu S/o Allen, sought for the similar relief, as it was granted by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2001, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2632/2000 (Chhabil Das &. others Vs. The State ORDERmmn (Passed on this 15th day of July, 2009) of Madhya Pradesh 8r, another). This Court after having observed that the petitioners therein were claiming Bhumiswami rights over the lands, which were granted to their predecessors prior to 1950 and the said lands were duly recorded in documents > Annexure P/ 12, disposed of the petition with the direction that the competent authority shall grant Bhumiswami lights in respect of the lands recorded in Jamabandi Vide Annexure P/ 12 in favour of the writ petitioners. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is unambiguous and clear that the same benefit may be granted to the petitioners by substituting the name of the petitioners in place of the respondents No. 4 and 5. The question involved in the instant case is purely a question of facts, which needs proper adjudication. It is not clear that the petitioners are the legal heirs or the respondents No. 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of Mahangu s/o Allen. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.R.Varma1 while considering the matter of disputed question of facts, observed as under: “6. ...... That is a question on which there is a serious dispute, which cannot be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence. lt is not the practice of Courts to decide question of that character in a writ petition, and it would have been a proper exercise of discretion in the present case if the learned Judges had referred the respondent to a suit.” This Court in Gayatri Agawal (Smt.) v. Chhattisgarh Housing Board and othersz has observed as under: “12. Having regard to the disputed facts of the case, this Court has no wherewithal to deal with the case as adjudication requires examination of evidences. Thus, withdrawal of the application before the Court of Tahsildar by 1 2 AIR 1957 so 882 2009 Lxr. (CG) 30 I 3 >4? the petitioner cannot help the petitioner, as the issue involved herein ought to have been decided by the Tahsildar or by a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for without establishing the maten‘al facts. There is no complaint of any breach of fundamental, legal or any other right, which can be adjudicated under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” In View of the above, the disputed question of facts cannot be decided by this Court, which requires production of witnesses, documents, examination of Witnesses and cross-examination thereof. In the present case, the proper forum would be a competent jurisdictionalCivil Court. 6. In the light of the above stated reasons, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to any other forum, may be jurisdictional Civil Court, that may be available under provisions of law. No order asto costs. , 'Sd/_ E‘s E Thakur i‘SatishK; Agnihmri i ‘ _’:‘.‘Ji'ldge- ‘ ,