AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 145 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
According to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 has raised a temporary structure on petitioner’s agricultural land.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to Competent Authority to dispossess respondent no. 4 from his agricultural land.
Since the issue involved in the writ petition would require recording of evidence, both oral and documentary, which is not permissible under Article
226 of Constitution of India.
Even otherwise also, disputed questions of fact and title cannot be resolved in public law remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The
remedy of the petitioner would lie elsewhere.
In such view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. However, petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum
available to him under law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.