- (1.) THE relief, which the petitioners seek under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the following effect: "(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners on Gata No.573 area 0.40 acre (0.138 hectare) of village Mohamdabad Urf Shikohabad, Tehsil Shikohabad, district Firozabad."
(2.) THE second and third petitioners claim to be owners of Gata No.573 ad -measuring 0.138 hectare existing at village Mohamdabad Urf Shikohabad, Tehsil Shikohabad, district Firozabad. They claim to have purchased the land from the first petitioner under a registered sale deed. The averment is that part of the aforesaid Gata was owned by the father of the first petitioner and a division had taken place in 1964 -65. During consolidation proceedings, Gata No.100 is alleged to have been divided and according to the petitioners, some part of the Gata No.100/2 was acquired. The grievance of the petitioners is that the officers of the first respondent are interfering with the possession of the petitioners, hence a mandamus is sought. The petitioners have claimed that an ex parte decree was passed on 29 March 1990 in a suit filed by the father of the first petitioner restraining the first respondent from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff therein.
(3.) WE are unable to grant the relief of injunction, as sought in the terms noted earlier, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners had filed an earlier writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25 March 2014 with liberty reserved to file a fresh petition showing the correct identity of the land over which the first petitioner claims his rights. The Division Bench, during the course of its order, observed as follows: "After the matter was heard at length, the correct identity of the land over which the petitioner claims his right is not borne out from the record and the documents filed along with the counter affidavit contains particulars about old plot nos. 100/1, 100/2, 100/3 and 100/4 along with new numbers that run to the averments made in the petition and the counter affidavit. Copy of the letter dated 28.3.2011, filed along with the counter affidavit, is annexure CA 4. From the record, which has been filed, it is not clear as to which part of the plot No. 100 is equal to the new plot nos." It was in this background that the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved as noted above. In our view, the petition raises disputed questions of fact. The area which is acquired or leftover after acquisition and the identity of the land over which the petitioners now claim an interest has to be resolved in appropriate proceedings and it would not be possible for this Court to do so under Article 226 of the Constitution. If, as is contended, the first petitioner's father has a decree which enures to the benefit of the first petitioner, efficacious remedies are available in that regard. The remedies can be adopted either by filing a proceeding for executing the decree or by filing a fresh suit for injunction before the competent Civil Court.;