e^ /a-^7 /' IN THE HIGH COU^TOF CfIHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A WRIT PETITION ( C ) No. -7 ^ \ Of 2010 ^ PETITIONER: ^ Dev Prasad S/o Baijnath Pathak, aged about 63 years, R/o Village Nigar Bandh, Tahsil Takhatpur, District BUaspur(CG). 1 RESPONDENTS: ^l. ^t^ ^. ^ ^" ^4. ^- Versus Rajendra Pathak S/o Baijnath Pathak, aged about 56 years, R/o Vmage Nigar Bandh, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). The Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur (CG). Conseryator of Forest, Bilaspur (CG). Chief Conservator or Forest, Raipur (CG). The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227_OFJ1IE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Y' HIGH COURT OF CHRATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fC) No. 7101 of 2010 Dev Prasad. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Rajendra Pathak & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Ms. Minu Banerjee, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Dy. A.G for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 06th day of December, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the entire proceedings of granting licence for running a saw mill in the name of respondent No. 1, as null and void and the orders passed by the forest authorities for granting licence as well as renewal of licence in favour of the respondent No. 1 may be quashed/set aside. Further, a writ commanding the respondents to grant licence for running saw mill in favour ofthe petitioner and to award suitable compensation. 2. On perusal ofthe pleadings, it appears to be a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, who are brothers. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained the property in dispute in partition, and on the basis of documents, without disclosing asto when the land in partition has been allotted in favour of the petitioner, has approached the forest authorities for grant of licence for running saw mill, which, according to him, has been granted on earlier occasions, recently, on 01.01.2009, which has come to an end on 31.12.2009. ^: 3. Be that as it may, it is purely a question of civil dispute between two brothers.It is well settled that a petition involving disputed question of facts cannot be entertained in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia to settle ownership right or partition etc. between frwo parties. 4. The Supreme Court, in Shalini Shetty & Another v. Rajendra shankar Patil, obser^ed as under: "59. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that a prpceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate fomm for adjudication of property disputes or disputes relating to title. In Mohd. Hanifv. State ofAssam a three Judge Bench ofthis Court, explaining the general principles goveming writ jurisdiction under Article 226, held that this jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is not meant for declaring the private rights of the parties. (See SCC p. 786, para 5 ofthe Report). In coming to the aforesaid conclusion in Hanif, this Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in T.C.Basappa v. T. Nagappa. 60. Following the aforesaid principles m Hanif, this Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Kalyani Banerjee held that serious question about title and possession of land cannot be dealt with by writ court. In formulating these principles in Kalyani Banerjee, this Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Sohan Lal (see SCC p. 282, para 16 ofthe Report.) 61. Again in State ofRajasthanv, Bhawani Singh this Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to declare a'person's title to property. {See SCC p. 309, para 7 ofthe Report.) 62. Subsequently, again in Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, this Court held that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for deciding property disputes between private persons and remedy under Article 226 is not available to decide such disputes unless there i§ violation of some statutory duty on the party of a statutory authority. (See p. 63, para 6 ofthe Report). 63, Following the aforesaid ratio in Mohan Pandey, this Court again in Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar v. State ofW.B., held that in a dispute between the land lord and tenant, a tenant cannot be evicted from his possession by a writ court. Again in P,R.Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, this Court held that it would be an abuse of process to approach a writ court in connection with dispute on questions I(2010) 8 SCC 329 "^ • .^ :••:• :^-"".-'^:' Amit of title for deciding which the civil court is the appropriate forum." 5. Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts of the case on hand and forthe reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^