HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION No. 1087 OF 2004 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Sahu, 5/0 Shyam Lal Sahu, aged about 38 years, Rio. Vill. Adbhar. Tah. Malkharoda, Tah. Malkharocla, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through/— Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). m “I It is stated at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that one Hire Lal was granted licence to run a Saw Mill. Subsequently, he found it difficult to run the same and. therefore, he executed an agreement on 24-04-1998 to sell the Saw Mill and a Flour Mill for a consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- and he received a sum of Rs.86,000/— under the said agreement. On the basis of that agreement, the petitioner made an appiication to the 2nd respondent to change the licence in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2"d respondent by his order dated 27-05-2003 changed the licence in the name of the ‘petitioner. When Hira Lal came to know about this, he made an \,/’A 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Janjgir ~ Champa Forest Division, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, District Janjgir — Champa (C.G.). Present: Smt. Maia Dubey, learned counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. Govt. Adv. for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed ‘—‘m———. on 17 April, 2006) V w “u, .41— application to the 2nd respondent that the document produced by the petitioner for change of ticence in hi3 name is a concocted document and, therefore, change of licence in the name of the petitioner should be cancelled. The 2““ respondent having conducted necessary enquiry by his order dated 23-07-2003 which is impugned in this writ petition, cancelled the registration of licence in the name of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. xx (2) l have heard learned counsel for the parties. v“ \\ (3) Admittedly, the 2m respondent had granted licence tn Hira Lal. The licence was registered in the name of the petitioner on the'basis of the agreement to sell dated 24-04-1998 which is now seriously contested by Hira Lal terming it as a concocted document. Whether it is so or not, cannot be decided either by the 2"“ respondent or by this Court in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. The question brought before the Court is a pure question of fact. ln order to resolve that contentious factual issue, it becomes necessary for the Court to permit the parties to adduce evidence and tender them for cross-examination by each other. ln that view of the matter, appropriate forum to decide the question is jurisdictional Civil Court. In that View of the matter, l dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Sd/—i \ Chief Justice s/b