Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate complex disputes over civil title and possession.

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of portions of Plot No. 60/139, acquired by registered sale deeds from the legal heirs of Ramesh Chandra Dash, whose interest originated in a Government lease.

Their mutation application was rejected, and an appeal was dismissed after the authorities found that the lease had been cancelled in 2000 and the land restored to Government Khata No. 62 (Anabadi).

The petitioners challenged the proposed construction of a crematorium on an adjoining site, alleging that the authorities had encroached upon their land and seeking to restrain further construction and preserve the status quo.

They also stated that the legality of the lease cancellation and resumption was under challenge in separate proceedings.

The State and the Gram Panchayat opposed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioners’ title was disputed and the matter required adjudication on evidence.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable where the petitioners’ claim to title and possession depended on a disputed, cancelled Government lease and contested revenue records.

Whether the petitioners’ claims concerning title, possession, and the boundary of the proposed crematorium site could be determined in writ proceedings or required adjudication by a Civil Court.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court, but that jurisdiction is not ordinarily suited to resolving serious and contested questions of civil title, factual possession, or boundary that require pleadings and evidence.

The Court stated that where the dispute primarily concerns such matters, the appropriate remedy is before a competent Civil Court rather than through a writ petition.

Article 300-A was invoked by the petitioners, but the Court did not determine the merits of that claim.

The Court found that the petitioners’ asserted title derived from a lease that had been cancelled and the land restored to the State’s Anabadi Khata; the resumption order had not been reversed by a competent authority.

The requested relief would therefore require examination of the validity and effect of the lease cancellation, the petitioners’ title and possession, and the disputed boundary between their claimed land and the proposed crematorium site.

Because those matters involved contested facts and required evidence, the Court held that they could not appropriately be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

It dismissed the petition and left the petitioners at liberty to pursue their grievances before the Civil Court, if so advised.