Ci^ If -VO LN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHAmSGARH) WRIT PETITION(C) N0. /2008. PETITIONER: ^€'/ c^t^/ ^^y f>/^ /.i- »**'.f '. Ambika Prasad Dewangan, son of Late Dwarika Nafh Dewangan, aged about 44 years, residence of Baigapara, near Shitla Mandir, Burg, Chhatdsgarh. 2. Yashpal Kuraar Dewangan, son of Late Dwarika Nafh Dewangan, aged about 41 years, residence of Baigapara, near Shifla Mandir, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku.Usha Dewangan, son of Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan, aged about 48 years, residence of Baigapara, near Shitla Mandir, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ku.Nirinala Dewangan, son of Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan, aged about 46 years, residence of Baigapara, near Shida Mandir, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus £espondents - ^:^ !3s^^, z^w-"^^- Bi^.iT ^L \y} v-cfir^y 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^2. Director, Lok ShikshanSanchanalaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /^3. District Education Officer, Durg, Chhatdsgarh. v^; ^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •:Mi HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2649 OF 2008 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Ambika Prasad Dewangan & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ,st. Post for pronouncement of the order on 5 / day of June,2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri SfflM v.'%^[ 'iffl!!li ^^ !;^1 .:.;^^.'l^^%^®:1t^^S%jl^ S^^^%®S^^% ^^!g^^;^^^:?:^^;;^^',^^^^^^% HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2649 OF 2008 Ambika Prasad Dewangan & Others RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArti.de 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlpn'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Om P. Sahu, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER (Delivered on this 3. /•{ day of June,2010) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to grant compensation in lieu of the petition scheduled land. 2. Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the land bearing Khasra No. 122/1 admeasuring 7 decimals was vested in the name of father of the petitioners in village Selud, District Durg. According to the petitioners, after the death of their father, the said land was transferred in the name ofthe petitioners. The contention ofthe petitioners is that the respondent authorities without acquiring the petition scheduled land from the petitioners in accordance with law constructed a school building in an illegal and arbitrary manner in spite of the fact that the said land was in the name of the petitioners. T \ ^ '^^'y "^.^.-^' S£i Learned counsel would further submit that after construction of the School building, the petitioners moved an application before the respondent authorities for grant of compensation. When no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioners sent a legal notice. In response to the said notice, the District Education Officer, Durg, directed the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Marra, to investigate the matter. Thereafter, the Principal investigated the matter and submitted his report dated 23-7-2005 (Annexure P-4) stating that the school building was constructed without acquiring the land from the petitioners in accordance with law. On the basis of the said repori:, the District Education Officer, Durg, by letter dated 24-3-2007 (Annexure P-1) informed the Director, Public Instructions, to grant compensation in favour of the petitioners, but till date no action has been taken without any rhyme or reason. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that the petition is not maintainable before this Court as the case involves disputed question of title of the land. Learned counsel would further submit that on enquiry made by the Tahsildar, Patan, it is found that the school building has not been constructed upon the land of the petitioners, as is evident from memo dated 3-1-2009 (Annexure R-1). The land belongs to the Government. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court and the petition may be dismissed. ^. 'K. '^.-^'v^ s-^ r-»'?'i Gowri 6. 7. 8. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Disputed facts in respect of the title and ownership of the land in question are involved in this case. In order to establish the title over the land in dispute, the proper forum is the competent jurisdictional civil Court:. This Court has no wherewithal to settle the disputed question of facts, as it requires examination of witnesses, evidences, documents and cross-examination thereof. This Court may decide the issue on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. It may not be sufficient requirement to adjudicate the issue with regard to title and ownership of the parties on the land in question. Under the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to the competent jurisdictional civil Court to establish their title and possession over the land in dispute. In the event, the petitioners succeed in the matter, they may thereafter raise the question of compensation before the appropriate forum, if so advised. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge