Writ courts cannot adjudicate seriously disputed questions of title, acquisition, possession, and plot identity.

The appellant claimed that Plot No. 739, measuring approximately 5 kathas 2 dhurs at Naya Gaon, Patna City, was private land settled in favour of her father, late Dev Narain Paswan, by a Hukumnama dated 30 Jeth, 1351 Fasli (1944), on an annual rent of Rs. 3. Her father allegedly remained in possession, paid rent, and was subsequently mutated in 1997; rent was thereafter paid to the State

In 2013, the respondents allegedly entered the land and commenced construction of a public park under the Chief Minister Urban Development Scheme. The appellant asserted that the land had not been acquired and that no consent had been obtained

In the writ proceedings, the State claimed that the disputed land formed part of the Nalanda Medical College and Hospital campus and had been acquired decades earlier. A subsequent inspection recorded that the park stood on Municipal Survey Plot No. 1232, while Plot No. 739 was allegedly within the NMCH boundary wall

The learned Single Judge held that the dispute involved contested questions concerning title, acquisition, identity, location and possession, which could not appropriately be adjudicated under Article 226, and left the parties to pursue remedies before the competent civil court. The appellant challenged that order in the intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining to adjudicate, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellant’s claim of title and possession over Plot No. 739 on the basis of the Hukumnama, rent receipts, mutation records and possession certificate?

2. Whether the rival claims regarding acquisition for NMCH, the identity and location of Plot No. 739, and the parties’ possession involved disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication by a competent civil court?

3. Whether the order of the learned Single Judge was perverse, legally unsustainable or affected by a jurisdictional error warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principle that an intra-court appeal is corrective in nature and interference is justified only where the Single Judge’s order is demonstrably erroneous, perverse or legally unsustainable, not merely because another view is possible, as explained in Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Under Article 226, the High Court may examine questions of fact, but ordinarily declines to adjudicate complex factual disputes requiring oral or documentary evidence, particularly disputed title to immovable property, as recognised in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa, State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh and Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.

Mutation entries and revenue receipts are not conclusive evidence of title and do not confer ownership, as held in Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court also held that the absence of acquisition records, by itself, could not establish the appellant’s title in writ proceedings

The Court found that the appellant relied on the Hukumnama and revenue documents, while the respondents asserted that the land had been acquired for NMCH and that Plot No. 739 lay within the hospital campus

The mutation order and rent receipts could support possession or revenue administration but could not conclusively establish title. Determining the validity and legal effect of the alleged settlement, whether the land was acquired, whether compensation was paid, and whether the park stood on Plot No. 1232 or Plot No. 739 required examination of evidence beyond the proper scope of the writ proceedings

Although disputed facts do not impose an absolute bar on Article 226 jurisdiction, the Court held that this dispute involved serious and interrelated questions of title, acquisition, identity and possession, making the civil court the appropriate forum

The earlier procedural orders directing an inquiry did not finally determine the appellant’s title or establish that the land had not been acquired

The intra-court appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no finding of perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality in the impugned order

The Court clarified that its observations, as well as those of the learned Single Judge, would not prejudice the competent civil court in deciding the dispute concerning the land