- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.5.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.3651 of 2007 whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by passing the following order. "This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus as the case may be against the respondent No.5 who has willfully and intentionally destroyed the two ponds agricultural lands of the petitioner appertaining to khata No. 155, Plot No. 1837, 287,172 a total area 31 (thirty one Bigha) of village Beriay thana No. 201, Deori and district Giridih, recorded in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner and after their death the petitioner came into possession and doing his and enjoying the same by paying the rent to the State Government and up to date rent receipts have also been issued in the name of his ancestors but the respondent No.5 in violation of all the norms and laws, taking law on his own land and forcefully destroyed the agricultural field and started the plantation over the land of the petitioner and also filled up both the ponds and put the petitioner in heavy loss and injury mentally and monetarily which can not be compensated in any way as the only source of livelihood has been taken away in violation of all the norms and laws and also in violation of the provisions of the principles of natural justice and the entire action of the respondent No.5 being illegal, without jurisdiction and petitioner is also entitled to be compensated by deducting the salary of the respondent No.5 for the ends of justice. The prayer in the writ petition cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it involves disputed question of fact which can only be decided by way of evidence and trial. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it will be in the fitness of thing that the petitioner approach an appropriate Court for redressal of his grievances and this writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty."
(2.) The question that needs consideration inter alia is as to whether the petitioner-appellant has acquired title over the land in question or the respondents' right has been saved by virtue of notification declaring the land as protected forest.
(3.) Since this dispute cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction, learned Single Judge rightly observed that the petitioner-appellant may approach an appropriate court for redressal of his grievances.;