IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1331of 2005 (M/B) Smt. Rekha Rani Viswas, W/o Sri Mahanand Viswas, R/o Shaktigarh Nagar Panchayat, Ward No. 4, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. District Magistrate / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Tehsildar, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Awani Malik S/o Sri Maharaj Malik, R/o Tagore Nagar, Tehsil Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar. …… Respondents Mr. K.S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C,J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. K.S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. They are heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner and also from interfering in her peaceful possession of the land of Khasra No. 502/2 measuring 0.809 Hectare (12 Beegha 16 Biswa ) in Tagore Nagar, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. b. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to record the name of the petitioner as lessee / patta holder in revenue records as she has acquired the status of hereditary tenant under section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act. c. to issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. d. to allow this writ petition and award the cost of it in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner’s entire claim is based on her alleged possession over the disputed land. Third respondent Awani Malik, in para 5 of the counter affidavit, has controverted the said fact and pleaded that, in fact, he is in actual and physical possession over the land in dispute. 4. Thus, it is apparent that without deciding the above disputed question of fact regarding the possession over the disputed land, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted. In the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not permissible to decide disputed questions of facts as the same would require leading of evidence by the parties. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 23.03.2006 23.03.2006 G