### PIL cannot adjudicate property disputes involving pending title suits and complex questions of ownership.

The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that land belonging to the East Central Railway was being illegally encroached upon by private individuals.

The respondents and intervenors brought to the court's attention that a title dispute regarding the same property (Title Suit No. 5/06/406/05) had previously been dismissed but was subsequently remitted back to the Sub-Judge, Gaya, by the Additional District Judge-IV on 04.05.2018 for fresh consideration.

The civil litigation regarding the title of the property is currently pending.

1. Whether a Public Interest Litigation can be entertained regarding the same subject matter while a Title Suit is pending before a competent Civil Court?

2. Whether the High Court under writ jurisdiction should adjudicate disputes involving questions of title, ownership, and encroachment that are essentially civil in nature?

The court applied the principle of judicial propriety and the doctrine of alternate remedy, holding that parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter ought not to be entertained when a competent civil court is seized of the matter.

Disputes involving complex questions of fact, such as title, ownership, and the extent of encroachment, require evidence-led adjudication which is the exclusive domain of a competent Civil Court rather than the writ court.

Remedies for impleadment of necessary parties are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court reasoned that because a Title Suit had been remanded by the District Court and was actively pending before the Sub-Judge, Gaya, it would be inappropriate to maintain a parallel PIL on the same facts.

The Bench observed that the nature of the dispute—revolving around title and ownership—is "essentially civil in nature" and cannot be decided in a summary proceeding.

Such matters require the recording of evidence, which only a Civil Court can perform.

Regarding the intervenors' claims, the Court noted that rather than seeking relief in a PIL, they should exert their rights under the CPC to be impleaded in the existing civil suit.

The Court declined to keep the PIL pending and dismissed the writ petition, granting the parties and intervenors the liberty to pursue their remedies before the competent Civil Court in accordance with the law.