Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate title disputes or bypass formal land acquisition for infrastructure projects.

The Petitioner, an administrative unit of Indian Railways, sought a writ of mandamus to restrain private Respondents (Nos. 6-10) from obstructing the completion of a 16.5 km railway line between Khambhaliya and Salaya, part of the Prime Minister’s Gati Shakti Project

The Petitioner claimed the railway track alignment existed since 1922 and vested in the Railways, citing historical Gazettes, railway maps from 1967, and certain old revenue records

However, the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR) filed an affidavit stating that the railway’s name appeared in the revenue records (Pratibook) for only four specific survey numbers (New Nos. 69, 188, 189, and 190)

For the remaining survey numbers, private respondents claimed ancestral ownership and possession, asserting that no formal land acquisition had ever taken place

Civil suits filed by the private respondents remain pending in the Khambhaliya Court

The court primarily applied Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law

It relied on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, establishing that a welfare state cannot dispossess a citizen without following the procedure established by law (acquisition or requisition) and that the right to property is a human and constitutional right

The court further applied the principle from Maharaj Umeg Singh v. State of Bombay and State of M.P. v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co., which holds that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not intended for adjudicating complex, disputed questions of fact or title that require evidence in a Civil Court

The court observed that while the Petitioner relied on historical maps and Gazettes, it failed to produce any formal land acquisition award or title document proving the disputed lands vested in the Railways

The DILR’s findings confirmed railway occupancy for only four survey numbers, and the Mamlatdar had already corrected the records for those specific plots

For the remaining 1.7 km stretch, the revenue records reflected the names of private respondents

The court reasoned that since the private respondents asserted long-standing possession and the Petitioner admitted there were no current records of allotment or acquisition for the disputed portions, the matter involved "disputed questions of fact"

Consequently, a writ of mandamus could not be issued to evict occupants as it would bypass the "due process of law" required by Article 300A

The court also noted that the Petitioner's unilateral undertaking to pay compensation later could not override the necessity of establishing legal title first

The court held that the Petitioner failed to prove its legal right to the disputed land through title documents or acquisition records

The court clarified that the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate legal steps, such as initiating formal land acquisition or pursuing remedies in a Civil Court, to resolve the title dispute

No directions for eviction or police protection against the private respondents were granted