Disputed Title and Ownership Claims in Land Acquisition Compensation Cannot Be Adjudicated Under Writ Jurisdiction

The petitioner claimed ownership of land in Village-Kerap Tole Lavri, Aurangabad, based on a registered sale deed and long-term possession

The land was acquired by the Indian Railway for a dedicated freight corridor, but compensation was paid to a third party rather than the petitioner

The petitioner's ownership verification claim was rejected by the D.C.L.R., Aurangabad

Subsequently, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, rejected the petitioner’s appeal (Ownership Appeal No. 128 of 2020) on 28.05.2025, finding that the petitioner failed to produce documents justifying ownership

The petitioner moved the High Court via writ jurisdiction to challenge these findings

1. Whether the High Court, under its writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate manifold disputed questions of fact regarding title and ownership of land

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a declaration of title from a Civil Court after failing to establish ownership before revenue authorities

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum for deciding disputed questions of fact relating to title and ownership

It relied on the doctrine of "Alternative Remedy," holding that a suit for declaration of title in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is the proper legal forum for resolving ownership disputes and verifying the validity of registered sale deeds against the State’s records

The Court observed that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to produce documents that could "bonafidely" justify his claim of ownership before the D.C.L.R. and the District Magistrate

The respondents (State and Union of India) contended that the case involved complex factual disputes that cannot be resolved in summary writ proceedings

The Court concurred, noting that since the petitioner "has lost on all forums" regarding administrative ownership verification, the High Court cannot sit as a fact-finding body to verify the sale deed or possession

Consequently, the proper course of action is for the petitioner to establish his "Title" through a comprehensive trial in a Civil Court where evidence can be recorded

The Court did not grant the relief sought in the writ application but allowed the petitioner’s prayer to withdraw the petition with liberty

It further directed the Civil Court to consider such proceedings expeditiously and hear all necessary parties if the petitioner resorts to such legal action

The writ application and all interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly