Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Cannot Resolve Highly Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Land Title

The petitioners claim ownership of land at Survey No. New 63, Vekariya, Ahmedabad, asserting possession and cultivation since 1955

They allege that while a portion of the land was used by Forest Authorities since 1977, the entire plot was recently enclosed by a boundary wall and fencing approximately ten months prior to filing, effectively dispossessing them without compensation or formal acquisition

The land was included in a 1982 notification for a Bird Sanctuary under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and a mutation entry in 2001 labeled it as such

Authorities confirmed that no formal acquisition proceedings were initiated and no award was passed for this specific parcel

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus for compensation or initiation of acquisition proceedings

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to resolve disputes involving highly contested questions of fact regarding land title and interest

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus for compensation when the state denies formal acquisition and the petitioners' underlying rights are disputed

The Court applied the principle that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating "highly disputed questions of fact"

It further relied on the doctrine that when right, title, and interest over property are in dispute, the aggrieved party must seek a remedy through a civil suit in a Civil Court rather than a writ petition

The court also touched upon Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law

The Court observed that while the petitioners claimed continuous ownership and recent illegal dispossession, the land had been associated with Forest Authority use since 1977 and was designated as a Bird Sanctuary in revenue records since 2001

Because the State authorities maintained there were no formal acquisition records or awards for this specific survey number, the petitioners' claims of ownership and the legality of the Forest Department's possession constituted a complex factual dispute

The Court reasoned that evaluating the "right, title, and interest" over the land requires the weighing of evidence, which exceeds the summary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Consequently, the Court found that the factual discrepancies regarding the nature of the land and the history of its possession could only be resolved through a plenary trial in a Civil Court

The Court ruled that the only appropriate course for the petitioners to establish their lawful ownership and claim relief for dispossession is to approach the Civil Court

No order as to costs was made