Disputed title and demolition-compensation claims requiring evidence must be adjudicated by civil court, not under Article 226.

The petitioner claimed that land comprised in Khata No. 86, Plot No. 675, Village Dalkidih, District Ranchi, had been legally settled in favour of his ancestors and that a portion subsequently devolved upon him.

He alleged that he had constructed a house on his share of the land. The State proposed to construct an I.T.I. hostel on the site and allegedly directed him to remove the structure; the structure was demolished on 7 June 2021, allegedly within two days of notice and without any adjudicatory proceeding.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the demolition was illegal and arbitrary, compensation for the demolition and dispossession, and protection against the State taking over the land.

The State contested the claim, asserting that the land was recorded as Gair Mazarua in the Khatiyan and that the petitioner had constructed only a small brick-and-asbestos structure without title. It also disputed the authenticity of the petitioner’s settlement documents and map.

Whether the petitioner or his ancestors possessed a valid right, title or interest in the land comprised in Khata No. 86, Plot No. 675, and whether the land had been legally settled in their favour.

Whether the demolished structure was an authorised construction belonging to the petitioner and whether its demolition by the State was lawful.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for demolition of the structure and alleged dispossession.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of title, validity of settlement, nature of land, authorisation of construction and assessment of compensation require adjudication on the basis of documentary and oral evidence and ordinarily cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court further recognised that a claim for compensation arising from alleged dispossession and demolition requires assessment of the extent of loss after evidence is led.

The Court noted that the demolition of the structure was admitted, but the parties were in dispute regarding the petitioner’s title, the legal settlement in favour of his ancestors, the character of the land as Gair Mazarua, and the legality of the construction.

These matters involved disputed questions of fact requiring proof through documentary and oral evidence, which could not properly be resolved in the writ jurisdiction.

Similarly, determining compensation for the alleged demolition and dispossession required evidence concerning ownership, possession and the actual loss suffered; such assessment was unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226.

Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue an appropriate civil remedy.

It directed the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for determination of his right, title and interest in the land.

The Court further observed that, if the Civil Court finds that the petitioner is the raiyat and that the land was properly and legally settled in favour of his ancestors, the same must be considered and appropriate orders passed.

The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions, and pending I.A. No. 12832 of 2025 was also disposed of.