gumwm HIGH COURT OP CHHAYTISGARH A! BHASPUR WRIT FETH‘ION {C} No. .1664 of 2008 (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF'INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. l’resemr 53m“ Rem Kochar. Advocate for me netitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, x ane} Lawyer far the $tate/reszpondents 1 t0 4. ‘ ORDER ORAL {Passed on 15 day of July, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of Bhakam S/o Chikhalmmn sought for the simiiar relief; as it was granted by the judgmmt and order dated 30.i0.20()1? passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2&32/2000 (Chhabil Das & others Vs. The $tate of -Madhya Pradesh & another). This Court afrer having observed that the petitioners therein were claiming Bhumiswami rights over the lands: which were granted to their predecessors prior to 1950 and the said lands were dulv recorded in documents Annexare Wig disposed of the petition with the direction. that the competent authority shatl gram: Bhumiswami rights in respect of‘the lands recorder} in Jamabandi Vide Armexure P/12 in. flavour ofthe writ petitioner's. The prayer of the petitioner in. this writ petition is unambiguous and clear that the same benefit may be granted to the petitioner by substituting the name of the petitioner in place of the responderits No. s The question involved in the instant case is pureiy a question of facts, which needs proper adjudication. it is not Clear that the petitioner is Jt‘ “ PETITIONER Manjram S/o Laie Shri Budru Ram, agad about 40 years, raSidan‘t uf viliage Mungapadar Tahsii Kondagaon? mama Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mailttalaya, D.K.S. Buiidmg Raipur (CG) ’ ‘2. Tim Collegtor, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District Ba3tar (CG) 3. T116 Sub Divisioual OKlcer (Ravauue) Komiagaon District Bastar (CG) 4. Th6 Talwildar, Kcxlihgatm, Disiriwt Bastar (CG) ~ 5. Faras Ram S/o Dukaru by casta Bhatra; rfo viilage Mungapadar, Tami} Kandgaon, District Bagtar ¢n . thé: lega'i heir or the respendems No. 5 is the iegai heirs 0f Bhalmm s/o Chikhaimahar. Hon’bk Supreme Court in Umrm of .i‘miz'a v. E’TR. Varma’ whils mmidaring the mater of dispumd quastion offacts, observed as under: “6. ......That is a, qusstion on which there ig a. serious dispute, which cannot be satisfacioriiy decided wifheut takmg evidencs. it is not the prac‘tice of Courts to tiecide question of that character m a writ petition arid it woukt have been a proper exercise of discretion in the present case ifthe leamed Judges had referred the teegmudent to a gui‘t.” This Court in Gayazri Agrawat (Sn/1t.) v. Chhattisgarh Housing Board med wharf has observed as under: “12. Having regard to the disputed facts of the case, this Court has no wherewithal to (lea! with the case as adjudication requires examination of evidences. 'ihus, Withdrawal of the application hefore tie Court of Tahsildar by the petitioner cannot help the petitionen 21s the issue invoived herein ought to have been decided by the Tzthsildar or by a eompetent Court of Civil jurisdiction The petitioner is not entitled to any reiief as sought for without eetahiishiog the material facts. There is no eomplaint of any breach offimdamentai, iega] or any other right which can be adjudicated under the ambit of Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India? in View oi‘the above, the disputed question of faots cannot be decided by this Court which requires production of witnesses, documents, examination of witnesses and cross-examination thereof. in the present ease, the proper forum wouid be a competent jurisdictional Civii Court. In the iight ofthe above stated reasons, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainabie. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to any other forum. may he jurisdictionai civil court, that: may be available under provisions ofiaw. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ui ge. z ’)r