Inter-State land-boundary disputes involving contested facts are not adjudicable under Article 226.

The petitioners sought to restrain Jharkhand authorities from conducting survey and Tasdique in certain unsurveyed border villages until demarcation between Jharkhand and Bihar was completed, and sought a joint team to carry out that demarcation.

The dispute concerned land along the Ganga, including Plot Nos. 2383 and 2384, measuring 540.310 acres in Mauza Baijnathpur, Katihar, Bihar.

Bihar stated that officials from both States had discussed measurement and that further efforts to measure the land had been affected by disagreement and the absence of Sahibganj officials on one occasion.

Jharkhand submitted that the dispute could not be decided by the High Court in writ jurisdiction and that it had constituted a team to resolve it.

Whether the High Court could adjudicate the disputed land identification and inter-State boundary issues in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the Court should direct the States to complete joint demarcation before survey and Tasdique.

The Court referred to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

It held that disputed questions of fact of this nature were not suitable for determination under Article 226 and stated that unresolved disputes could be decided by a competent civil court.

The judgment cites no statutory provisions beyond the constitutional jurisdiction provisions and no precedents.

The requested demarcation depended on resolving contested factual questions about the location and identification of land across the State boundary.

The parties’ accounts of prior measurement efforts and administrative cooperation were also in dispute.

Given the nature of those questions, the Court declined to determine the boundary or order the requested demarcation through writ proceedings.

It instead left the petitioners at liberty to present their case to the joint committee constituted by the States and to seek civil-court adjudication if the dispute remained unresolved.

It granted the petitioners liberty to approach the constituted committee of Jharkhand and Bihar; if no resolution was reached, the dispute could be taken to a competent civil court.