WRIT PETLTiQN NQ.4824 OF 2006 v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Shri B.P. Sharma, teamed counset for the petitioners. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. Adv. General with Shri Utfcarsh Verma, tearned G. A. for respondents 1,4 and 5. Shri Ayaz Naved, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri P. Diwakar, tearned Sr. Advocate with Shri P.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Shri P.S. Koshy, tearned counsel for respondent No.7. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th December, 2006) The very petition schedule land which is the subject matter of ttie writ petition No.5732 of 2006 is the petition schedule land in this writ petition also. The petitioners apprehending that the petition schedule land is likely to be leased to respondent No.6 have preferred this writ petition seeking intervention of the Court. tt is quite often said and reiterated by the Constitutiongt Courts that title dispute cannot be decided in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits, particularly, when it involves appreciation of evidence and recording of factual flnding after permitting the parties to tead evidence and tendering them to cross-examine by each other.

The materials placed before the Court would undeniably show that there is a serious titte dispute betwesn the Govemment of Chhattisgarh and the Management of S.E.C.L.- the 7!h respondent herein. In para 2 of the reply filed by 7th respondent, it is stated that the petition schedule land was -^ l'~J "7 T ( '"":: ' 7 1 ^: ^; -3- acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Devetopment) Act, 1957 and thereby the State Government was totelly denuded of its ownership and in that view of the matter, neither the Government of Chhattisgarh nor the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation has any right or jurisdiction to transfer or allot the petition schedule land to the sixth respondent. In the counter filed by the Chhattisgarh State Industriat Development Corporation-the second respondent, it is pointed out that since the sixth respondent did not furnish necessary details, a notice was issued to it to comply with the requirements, and that no further action is taken in that regard.

One thing is certain that unless uffimately it is shown that the petition schedule land is the land owned by the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner Gram Panchayat asserting their right over the petitiori schedule tand, as they have done in the present writ petition, woutd not arise. In other words, if ultimatety it is found that the petiUon schedute land was acquired by the Central Government under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957, and the Government of Chhattisgarh was denuded of its ownership, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is not entitled to assert any right against the management of S.E.C.L. Therefore, in order to grant retief to the petitioners, it becomes absolutely necessary for the Court to decide in the first instance whether the petition schedule tand is the ownership property of the State of Chhattisgarh or is the properiy of S.E.C.L./Central Government.

That precise question cannot be decided, as already stated above, in a summary proceeding under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India. That is the circumstance which persuaded the Court to dismiss the writ petition No.5732 of 2006 and directing the parties to workout their lega! remedies by instituting suit before the civil Court. There is absolutely no good reason to take a different view from the one \-.. -fy already taken by us in W.P. No.5732 of 20006, particularly, because, the subject land is the same in both the writ petitions. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Nocosts. —---— Sd/- ChiefJustice "\ %• %: •^ ~_i.