Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for resolving disputed property title requiring full evidence.

The petitioners challenged the removal of their boundary wall and access way from land in Bhagalpur, which they claimed was ancestral property in their possession.

They alleged that local officials acted unlawfully and in collusion with private respondents, relying in part on an order dated 24 April 2023 of the Public Grievance Redressal Cell directing removal of an encroachment

The State maintained that the disputed land was recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” land and that notices and opportunities to remove the encroachment had been given before its removal in March 2024

The State also objected that the petitioners had not pursued the statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956

1. Whether the High Court should determine in writ proceedings the disputed claims concerning the character, title to, and possession of the land, and the legality of the resulting removal of the petitioners’ boundary wall and access way

2. Whether the petitioners’ challenge should be entertained despite the State’s assertion that a statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, was available

The Court relied on the principle that proceedings under Article 226 are summary and are not ordinarily suited to deciding disputed questions of title that require evidence and a trial

It cited Sohamlal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529, for the rule that a writ court should not declare title or order restoration of property where doing so would require resolving contested factual and legal claims

The State invoked Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, as providing a statutory appeal against relevant orders under the Act

The judgment describes the removal procedure as having been followed under the “Act of 2016,” while its discussion of the statutory appeal refers to the 1956 Act

The petitioners disputed that the land was public land and challenged the circumstances and legality of the removal; the State asserted that the land was recorded as government land and that the encroachment was removed after notice and opportunity

Resolving those competing accounts would require determining the nature and possession of the land—matters the Court considered unsuitable for summary determination under Article 226, consistently with Sohamlal

On that basis, and noting that the State had identified a statutory appeal, the Court declined to decide the disputed merits in the writ proceeding

It declined to interfere because the dispute involved questions of fact and left the petitioners at liberty to seek relief before the appropriate forum; any application, petition, or appeal filed was to be considered on its merits

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly