(7^)<yZQ JN THB HON'BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR W.P. / C 7 No. ~}'y?3 /2011 PETITIONBR:- ^" >1>- ^ .^^5^ ^i<^ y^^ ^^- ^^y"^^ ^- ,-•0^ ^'y RESPONDENTS:- Mineketan Choudhary S/o Shri Madhusudan Choudhary Aged about 62 years Occupation -Farmer R/o Village - Libra Post Tamnar Dist Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary , Public Work Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) ^•^ r^/ \~ \» ,^u-ttL ^n^! ^^ 2. Collector , Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) c" 3. Sub Divisional Officer Raigarh District - Raigarh (C. G.) 4. Tahsildar , Tamnar Dist Raigarh (C. G.) 5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village ,Block Tamnar District - Raigarh (C. G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETmON (C) No. 7373 of2011 Mineketan Choudhary. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTmJTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Atul Pandey, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Paael Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. ORDER (Passed on 07th day ofDecember, 2011) 1. Challenge in fhis petition is to the notice dated 19.11.2011 (Amiexure P/l) issued by the Gram Panchayat Libra^ Block Tamnan District Raigarh, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause asto why the unauthorized constmction raised by the petitioner may not be removed wifh the use offorce and the expenses incurred upon fhe same may not be recovered from the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 19.11.2011 (Annexure P/l), to which the petitioner has responded on 28.11.2011 (Annexure P/2). According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, fhe same stand was maintained that the petitioner has encroached upon the land in dispute. Shri Pandey submits that final order has been passed, though no documents have been filed in this petition. 3. Be that as it may, the petition involves disputed question offacts with regard to the right and title ofthe petitioner on the laiid in dispute. It is well settled fhat disputed question of facts cannot be decided by this r' o?^ Court in exercise ofits extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 of fhe Constitution oflndia. The petition may take recourse to conipetent jurisdictional civil court for settlement of the disputed question of facts. 4. The Suprenie Court, in Shalini Shetty &Another v. Rajendra shankar Patil, observed as under: "59. It has repeatedly been held by fhis Court that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate fomm for adjudication ofproperty disputes or disputes relating to title. laMohd. Hanif v. State ofAssam a three Judge Bench of fhis Court, explainmg the general principles goveming wnt jurisdiction under Article 226, held that this jurisdiction is extraordmary in nature and is not meant for declaring tfae private rights ofthe parties. (See SCC p. 786, para 5 of the Report). In coming to the aforesaid conclusion in JLTa^fhis Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in T.C.Basappa v. T. Nagappa. 60. Following the aforesaid principles in Hanif, this Court mHindustan SteelLtd. v. Kalyani Banerjeeheld that serious question about title aiid possession of land cannot be dealt with by writ court. hi fomiulating these principles mKalyam Banerjee^ this Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision 'mSohan Lal(seeSCC p. 282, para 16 of the Report.) 61. Agam in State ofRajasthan v. Bhawam Singhfhis Court held that a writ petition is not fhe appropriate fomm to declare a person's title to property. (See SCC p. 309, para 7 offhe Report.) 62.Subsequently, again 'mMohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria^^ Court held that a regular suit is fhe appropriate remedy for deciding property disputes between private persons and remedy under Article 226 is not available to decide such disputes unless there is violation of some statutory ri^^^^^ duty on the party of a statutory autfiority. (See p. 63, para 6 oftfae Report). 63, Following the aforesaid ratio mMohan Pandey, this Court again mPrasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar v. State of Wr.B.,held that in a dispute between the land lord and tenant, a tenant cannot be evicted fi'om his possession by a writ court. Again mP.RMurlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar,i^ Court held that it would be an abuse ofprocess to approach a writ court in connection with dispute on questions of title for deciding Which the Civil COurt is tiie appropriate forum." 5. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed as not mamtamable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to competent jurisdictional civil Court, ifso advised, for appropriaterelief. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge [1] (2010)88cc 329 Amit