Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to resolve disputed questions of title requiring elaborate examination of evidence.

Petitioner Ashok Pandey claimed ownership of 12 Katha of land in Plot No. 31, Khata No. 03, Mauza Thawe, based on a 1958 registered deed and a 1968 sale deed executed by the heirs of the ex-landlord (Maharaja of Hathwa)

He alleged that while he was in possession, the Forest Department obstructed his construction activities, claiming the land was transferred for an Eco Park

The State respondents contended that the land was recorded as Gairmajaruwa malik jungle and had vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950; consequently, the ex-landlord had no authority to execute deeds post-vesting

The State further alleged that the petitioner's rent receipts were fabricated

Simultaneously, a public interest writ was filed regarding encroachments on the same land

1. Whether the High Court can adjudicate complex disputes involving title, possession, and the validity of sale deeds under its writ jurisdiction when material facts are contested by the State

2. Whether the authorities should be directed to expedite pending encroachment proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956

The Court primarily applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of fact regarding title

It relied on Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammad (AIR 1961 SC 1526), which established that disputed facts must be resolved through a regular civil suit

It further cited State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh (1993 Supp (1) SCC 306), holding that ownership disputes cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ proceedings

The procedural framework of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, was also noted regarding the removal of unauthorized occupants

The Court observed that the case involved "disputed questions of fact" as the State had explicitly challenged the legality of the petitioner’s title deeds and the authenticity of the rent receipts

Since the State claimed the land was Gairmajaruwa malik jungle that vested in the government in 1950, the petitioner’s claim of title via post-1950 deeds required an elaborate examination of oral and documentary evidence

The Court reasoned that such an evidentiary inquiry is outside the scope of writ jurisdiction

Regarding the second writ, the Court noted that an encroachment case (Case No. 14/2017-18) had been pending for eight years and required administrative resolution rather than judicial interference on merits

CWJC No. 5159/2025 was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to expedite the disposal of Encroachment Case No. 14/2017-18 in accordance with the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, preferably within three months

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the title dispute