Writ jurisdiction is unavailable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact concerning property title and boundaries.

The Petitioner and his wife purchased 10 decimals of land in Mauza Telidih via a registered Sale Deed in 1981, followed by mutation and a measurement (mapi) in 2013

The Petitioner alleged that a private respondent encroached upon 2 decimals of the land. Subsequent official measurements recorded varying areas of 8.5, 8.10, and 8.11 decimals, all less than the original 10 decimals

Following a direction from the High Court in a previous proceeding (W.P.(Cr.) No. 101 of 2021) to pass a reasoned order, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, issued the impugned order dated 27.10.2021

The Deputy Commissioner concluded that the matter involved "complicated facts and complicated questions of law," cancelled the Petitioner’s applications, and granted liberty to seek remedy before a competent civil court

The Petitioner challenged this order, alleging it was unreasoned and violated principles of natural justice

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can adjudicate disputes involving measurements, boundaries, and alleged encroachments of immovable property.

2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, directing the parties to a civil court, was legally sustainable.

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

It relied on the settled legal principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to decide private property disputes involving title, possession, or boundaries for which alternative civil or criminal remedies exist

The court specifically cited Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2019) 2 SCC 329, which established that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for property disputes between private persons and that Article 226 should not replace ordinary civil remedies

The Court observed that the crux of the dispute involves determining the exact area of land, the correctness of multiple conflicting measurements, and the validity of alleged encroachments

The Court found that the variations in the official measurement reports and the errors in the maps accompanying the registered sale deed created "complicated facts" that require a full trial

The Court reasoned that under Article 226, it is not the forum to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding immovable property

It held that the Deputy Commissioner acted within his jurisdictional limits by identifying these complexities and directing the Petitioner to a civil court

The Court emphasized that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, making writ interference unwarranted

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to avail appropriate remedies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction while clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims