Noor Ali Farista and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

S.K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioners seek for quashing of the chart (Annexure P/6) indicating plot numbers etc. and further, a direction to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to Make proper amendment showing the petitioners to be the landlord of the land in question in compliance of the order of the Revenue Board.

Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3, in his affidavit clearly submits that firstly, Annexure P/6, which is sought to be quashed, does not pertain to them, hence, no reply is required to be filed. Secondly, if there is non-compliance of the order of the Board of Revenue, this Court may not be proper forum for execution of the order.

Shri Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Prayga Shigh, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 submits that it is in dispute as to whether land is grazing land or belong to the petitioner.

In response, the petitioner has filed several revenue documents indicating the land belongs to them as they have purchased the land and thereafter necessary mutations have been carried out in their names. There is no reason as to why the land of the petitioner has been treated as grazing land.

Be that as it may, the present petition involves disputed question of facts as to whether the land in dispute is a grazing land or the land belongs to the petitioners. The disputed question of facts cannot be decided on the basis of certain revenue records filed in this Court or on the basis of sale deed. The requires proper investigation in the mater, spot inspection and proper documents and evidence of witnesses.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 993 (SC) , in categorical terms observed as under:

It has repeatedly held by this Court that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate power. It is a supervisory power. While exercising this power, the Court does not go into the merits of the decision taken by the authorities concerned but only ensures that the decision is arrived at in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and in accordance with the principles of natural justice wherever applicable. Further, where there are disputed question of fact the High Court does not normally go into or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact...

Of course, where there is a statutory violation, interference would be permissible even in the case of a contract but not where the relevant facts are disputed and which dispute calls for an elaborate enquiry which cannot be conveniently done by the High Court in a writ petition.

Further, In P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, , the Supreme Court observed that:

12... A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of facts 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...

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.

In Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Another, while making the above position more clear, observed as under:

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.

The Supreme Court, in Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , observed as under:

For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly when such questions are pending consideration before competent civil courts."

In Mohan Pandey and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Others, , observed as under:

6...it has repeatedly been held by this Court 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 authority 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, of which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.

In N.T. Abraham Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal, held as under:

The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature which has to be agitated in an appropriate forum. Whether there has been a bona fide mistake or not in paying the excess amount to the appellant and whether, the appellant is entitled to retain the said amount of Rs. 1, 59, 939.75 or not, are all matters which have to be decided under civil law and these disputes cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Applying the well-settled principle of law to the facts of he case, the disputed facts involved in this petition, cannot be decided by this Court.

Thus, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, with regard to the compliance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner may take recourse to appropriate forum that may be available to the petitioners, under the provisions of law, if so advised.