Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate easementary rights or access disputes involving contested questions of fact.

The petitioner, an owner of agricultural land in District Dhamtari, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the construction of a commercial complex by Nagar Panchayat Aamadi (Respondent No. 8).

The petitioner alleged the construction was illegally raised on government grass land (Khasra No. 1700) originally reserved for a school and that it obstructed his nistari road (easementary access) to his fields.

Respondent No. 8 and the State countered that the land allotment was legally changed from school use to the Nagar Panchayat, all sanctions were obtained from the State Government, and the complex design included two wide passages to ensure the petitioner's access.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate a dispute involving easementary rights and contested factual obstructions to a private path.

2. Whether the construction of a commercial complex by a municipal body, sanctioned by the State, should be demolished based on an apprehension of inconvenience regarding access.

The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not adjudicate "disputed questions of fact".

Grievances regarding the infringement of civil or easementary rights (right of ingress/egress over land) are matters that fall within the private law domain, necessitating adjudication by a competent Civil Court rather than a writ court.

The Court examined the competing claims supported by maps and photographs provided by both parties.

It found that Respondent No. 8 had proactively provided two sufficiently wide passages within the complex to facilitate the petitioner’s entry and exit to his agricultural land.

The Court noted that the construction was not clandestine but supported by necessary government approvals and land allotment revisions.

Regarding the petitioner's claim of obstruction, the Court reasoned that such a dispute is inherently factual and evidentiary. Since the Nagar Panchayat demonstrated that access was maintained, the petitioner’s grievance shifted from a total deprivation of rights to a mere "apprehension" of inconvenience, which does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus for demolition.

The Court declined to order the demolition of the commercial complex but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent civil forum for appropriate relief regarding his easementary rights.