« l.^-.^l ^^ ',, •"t''"' """^, l^.:^lj '^•-:'"^ ^T'v: :('e-c^1 1'^., • - '^ € \: ^,F/' -/^r",^ ^-Sii^i£ai.^m.T«£SLi.l£IC^TURSAte' ,BZIiAspl-iR (CffiiATO ISGMiH) ^^2^®^_^^L^001 PETITIONBR .RE.SPQNDSN.rS J.?^^. -••"^A.^^X\^ "• Basant Prasad Gupta^ S/o^ Devnarayan Prasad Gupta^i ^ged 50 years^ Residen-fc of Vj.il. %iaiyathan, 'Cahsil Surajpur, Disfe. Surguja. (C,G<) vs« ^^€« ^a-fce lo:6_G^attlsgarh^ Shrough Gollector,; ^^ Surguja (G«G.) ^y^^ ^'"" Szib-Diviaional Magistrate^ Surajpur^j Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3» BjLvisional Porest Gfficer^ Sout3i Stirguja Fprest Division, Arobikapur (C<G«) 4» Hange Officer, Bhaiyatfaan iPorest Range>| / Tahsil Surajpi.ir^j Disto Surguja (C,G») 5» Stafion House Officer^ PS Bhai.yathan^Tah.Siirajpur (C<G«) PETATIOM UNDSR, ,ARTICLS 226 & 22T OP^CONSS'ITUTION OFINDIA TORISSUANCE OP 13? IN SHS EBLTURB OP MANBAMUS^ CBRTI^^^ S2SI&ISI2!S^^.-®R,0 SR .SUZPABLE WRIT OB WRITS,ORDER OR ORDERS, OIftECSION OR DIRBCTIONS• ^i^--^^ .^' ..^^•:ii / f i? (5? ^ -v< PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1551 OF 2001 Basant Prasad Gupta Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for the petjtioner. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State. 2. ORDER (Passed on th.is 28 day of Novembsr, 2011) Challenge in thss petition is to the memo dated 10.02.1999, whereby, the Sub Divisionat Magistrate, instructed the Police Station In-charge, Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, to go to the spot andtake action on the complaint of the petitioner, as officials were brealdng the supenstructure on the alleged land of the petittoner. There-against, a revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, dismissed the revisio^ on the ground that Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed a direction in exercise of his administrative power: therefore, no revision was maintainable. Accordingly, the same was dismissed. There-against, the instant petition has been fited. The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with enjoyment of proprietary rights by the petitioner in respect of the property purchased by him. Be that as it may, the memo dated 10.02.1999, wherein a direction was made to the police offteer tp take action to go on the spoit and take action for stopping the destructionof the construction is concerned. the Additional Sessions Judge was right incoming into concluston that there was an administrative order and no revision was maintainable before the Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, both the impugned ordere dated 10.02.1999 and 15.01.2001 arejust and proper, need no interference. •^y ":^-^~ 2 The petitioner has filed several revenue recorcte showing that he is the rightful owner and in possession of the land in dispute bearing khasra Nos.1200/1, 1200/2 and 1200/3. This issue cannot be decided by this Court, as has been held in catena of decfeions that where several disputed facts are involved in respect of the wvnership of the land/property or possession, the same can be deoided only by a competent jurisdictional Civil Court. Thus, this petition is not maintainable on that ground ateo. Be that as it may, it is purely a question of civil dispute between the parties. It is well settled that a petition involving disputed question of facts cannot be entertained in a petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of India to settle ownership right or partition eto. between two parties. The Sypreme Court, in Shalini Shetty &Anoffier v. Rajendm shankar Patll1, observed as under: "59. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum 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 governing 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 of the Report). In coming to the aforesakt condusion in Hanif, thfe Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in T.C.Basappav. T.Nagappa. 60. Following the aforesaid princ4)le8 in Hanif, this Court in Hindustan Stee/ Ltd. v. Kalyani Bane/yee held that serious question about title and possession of land cannot be dealt with by writ court. In formulating these principles in Kalyani Baneipe, this Court relied on the (2010)83cc329 ^'"^'^ ^';- 3 Constitution Bench decision in Sohan Lal (see SCC p. 282, para 16 ofthe Report.) 61. Again in State ofRajasthan v. Bhawani Singh this Court held that a writ petition Js not the appropriate forum to declare a person's title to property. (See SCC p. 309, para 7 ofthe Report.) 62. Subsequently, again in Mc^ian Panstoy v. Usha Rani Raigaria, 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 availabte to decide such disputes unless there is 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 Karmakarv. StateofW.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.Murii(Siaran v. Swarrt Dharmananda Theertha Padar, this Court held that itwould be anabuse of process to approach a writ court in conneetion with dispute on questions of title for deciding which the civil court is the appropriate forum." Applying the well settled principle of law tothe facts of the case on hand and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitton is dismissed. No order asto costs. <S) Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashoK