Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions of property title or possession.

The petitioner claimed that his late father, Manroop Singh Parmar, was allotted 1 bigha of land in Survey No. 114/1, Village Ghosapura, Gwalior, via a 1959 Tehsildar order.

He alleged his father's name appeared as Bhoomiswami in revenue records until 2007-08, but during 2008-09 digitization, the name "Jiwaji Rao Cotton Mills" was erroneously recorded.

Claiming the State and the Mill were interfering with his peaceful possession, the petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to protect his possession and a certiorari to quash the "Sarkari" (government) remarks in revenue records.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate forum for adjudicating disputed questions of fact regarding land title and possession.

2. Whether the court can grant a blanket relief of quashing revenue entries without the presence of specific adverse orders or documentary evidence on record.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the discretionary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in P.R. Murlidharan and Others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others (2006), which establishes that writ jurisdiction cannot be a substitute for a civil suit, nor can it be used as a forum for adjudicating civil rights or property status that remain to be established in a plenary trial.

The court observed that the petitioner sought the relief of a permanent injunction and the quashing of entries without challenging specific orders or providing material evidence to support the claim of illegality.

It noted that the revenue records provided by the petitioner actually showed "Jiwaji Rao Cotton Mills" recorded against the survey number, contradicting his claim of a sudden 2008-09 change.

The court reasoned that the interference with rights claimed by the petitioner constitutes a "disputed question of fact" that requires evidence-based adjudication under common law rather than a summary exchange of affidavits.

It emphasized that granting police protection or possessory relief in a writ petition without prior adjudication of title by a civil court would be an abuse of process.

It held that the dispute is civil in nature and cannot be entertained under Article 226.

The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek grievance redressal regarding title, ownership, or interference before a competent civil court in accordance with law.

All pending applications were closed.