5%(81? 9 3 3mg mm BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ¥H2y WRIT PETITION No. 2009 f, PETITIONERS 1. Noor Ali Farista, Aged about 75 years S/o Abrahim Bhai Farista R/o. Fiat No. 205, Second floor Gulshan Plaza, Mubarak Bazar Lane, Abdus - Hyderabad ThrougW Samir Thorani 1 (Power of Attorney) Aged about 4O years S/o Late C.B. Thorani R/o 50, Faristha Complex Raipur (CG) Smt. Mallka Bano, W/o. Noor Ali Farlsta Aged abut 72 years R/o. Flat No. 205, Second floor Gulsha Plaza, Mubarak Bazar Lane, Abdus — Hyderabad Smt. Zarlna Thorai (Power Attorney) Aged about 62 yers Widow of Late C.B. Thorani R/o. 50—aristha Complex Raipur (CG) n o Through n of a F HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 7427 of 2009 PETITIONER : Noor Ali Farista & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION U/A. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prssent: Shrl T K Tlwarl Advocate for the petltloners Shr1 N N Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents I to 3 Shr1 H B Agrawal Senlor Advocate wrth Ms Pragya Slngh Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 27 day of September, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek for quashing of the chart (Annexure P/6) indicating plot numbers etc. and further, a direction to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to make proper amendment I showing the petitioners to be the landlord of the land in question in compliance of the order of the Revenue Board. 2. Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3, in his affidavit clearly submits that firstly, Annexure P/6, which is sought to be quashed, does not pertain to them, hence, no reply is required to be flled. Secondly, if there is non-compliance of the order of the Board of Revenue, this Court may not be proper forum for execution of the order. 3. Shri Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Prayga Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 submits that it is in dispute asto whether land is grazing land or belong to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner has filed several revenue documents indicating that the land belongs to them as they have purchased the land and thereafter necessary mutations have been carried out in 4g their names. There is n0 reason asto why the land of the petitioner has been treated as grazing land. 5. Be that as it may, the present petition involves disputed question of facts asto whether the land in dispute is a grazing land or the land belongs to the petitioners. The disputed question of facts cannot be decided on the basis of certain revenue records flled in this Court or on the asis of sale deed. This requires proper investigation in b the matter, spot inspection and proper documents and evidence of Witnesses. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of MP. & Others v. M V Vyavsaya & C01., in categorical terms, observed as under: “15. It has repeatedly held by this Court that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate power. It is a supervisory power. While exercising this power, the Court does, not go into the merits of the decision taken by the authorities concerned but only ensures that the decision is arrived at in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and in accordance with the principles of natural justice wherever applicable. Further, where there are disputed question of fact, the High Court does not normally go into or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact. .. l7. Of course, where there is a statutory violation, interference would be permissible ev'en in the case of a contract but not where the relevant facts are disputed and which dispute calls for an elaborate enquiry which cannot be. conveniently done by the High Court in a writ petition. ” Further, in P.R.Murlidharan & Others v. Swami Dharmananda Teertha Padar & 0thers2, the Supreme Court observed that: “12...A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond 4% the scope and purport of the jurisdiption of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it is also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. .t 13. Furthermore the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary in a case of this nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit.” In Nobel Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Others3, While making the above position more clear, observed as under: “18. It may, however, be true that where serious disputed questions of fact are raised requiring appreciation of-evidence, and, thus, for determination thereof, examination of witnesses would be necessary; it may not be V convenient to decide the dispute in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 9. The Supreme Court, in Moran MBaselios Marthoma Mathews II and Others v. State ofKerala & 0thers4, observed as under: i “15. For the reasons stated herenbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regardto the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly when such questions are pending consideration before competent civil courts.” In Mohan Pandey & another v. Usha Rani Rajgarz'a (Smt) & Othersj, observed as under: "6...It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the 3 (2006) 10 scc 236 ‘ 4 (2007) 6 scc 5 17 5 (1992) 4 scc 61 \ authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant.‘ The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.” In N.T.Abraham v. State ofKerala & Othersé, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, held as under: “3. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature which has to be agitated in an appropriate forum. Whether there has been a bona flde mistake or not in paying the excess amount to the appellant and whether, the appellant is entitled to retain the said amount of Rs. l,59,939.75 or not, are all matters which have to be'decided under civil law and these disputes cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” l2. Applying the well-settled principle of law to the facts of the case, the disputed facts involved in this petition, cannot be decided by this Court. 13. Thus, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, with regard to the compliance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner may take recourse to appropriate forum that may be available to the petitioners, under the provisions of law, if so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .6 (1999) 9 scc 280