£§N$LE gEmw BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(C) No. €$é$ / 2010 PETITIONER / Vinod Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Verma, aged about 38 years; R/o Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil 8L District— Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :/ 1) Chhattisgarh' Grih Nirman Mandal, Zone No.3, Maulshree Vihar, Opp. Hotel Babylone, VIP Road, Purena, Raipur (C.G.) / 2) Town & Country Planning, Through vthe Director, RDA Building, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) / 3) New Raipur Development Authority through the CEO, RDA Building, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L/g H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 5368 OF 2010 \X’ \\9 Petitioner Vinod Kumar Verma Versus Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Adhiraj Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents ORDER ORAL .(Passed on 22“ day of September, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authOrities to stop the construction activities initiated by them in front of the land of the petitioner and the respondents may be directed to provide alternate passage to the petitioner to enter into his premises. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 252/2 admeasuring 0‘304 hectares situated at village Dharampura, Patwari Halka No.115, Raipur. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are going to construct the residential colony in front of the land of the petitioner. lf the said colony is constructed the passage for entering into his premises may be disturbed. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities, but the said initiative taken by the petitioner does not fructify. The action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as by the aforesaid action, the respondents are taking away the moral and legal right of the petitioner as guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution of india. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent authorities are going to construct the residential colony on a separate piece of land and the petitioner has failed to make out his case that any portion of his land hasbeen encroached by the respondents while doing the construction activities. The instant petition involves disputed question of facts with regard to the land, which is in dispute. According to the petitioner, the construction is I being done on his lahd, whereas according to the respondents, the construction is at some other new place. It is well settled that a dispute of property cannot be settled by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, without taking recourse to civil jurisdiction has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Mohan Pandey and Another v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt) and Others’ observed as under : “6...It has repeatedly been held by this Curt 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 aLrthority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the 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 ........... . n 7. Further in P.R. Murlidharan and others vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and othersz, the Supreme Court observedrthat : “12.....A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it is also involved determination of disputed questions of fact..... 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. " 1 (1 992) 4 SCC 61 2 (2006) 4‘SCC 501 \ Ashok/, Gowri [fay :ki The Supreme Court in Nob/e Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and another3, 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 convenient to decide the dispute in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. " ’ Having regard to the disputed facts of the case, this Court has no wherewithal to deal with the case as adjudication requires examination of evidences. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as ought for without establishing the material facts. There is no complaint of any breach of fundamenta!, legal or any other right, which can be adjudicated under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ln view of the foregoing and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to any other statutory forum that may be available to the petitioner for adjudicationof the disputed facts and appropriate relief. i Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri r Judge r— x 3 (2006) 1o scc 236 s _,