1 CGHC010352372022 2026:CGHC:40789 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4666 of 2022 1 - Saraswati Mishra W/o Late Shri Rajkishore Mishra Aged About 71 Years R/o Plot No. 15, Kailash Nagar Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vivek Mishra S/o Late Shri Rajkishore Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Plot No. 15, Kailash Nagar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Department Of (Industries), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, District Industrial Central, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - H.S. Mishra S/o D.N. Mishra Aged About 60 Years M/s Chhattisgarh Alloy Casting, Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anish Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 30 Years Director M/s. Shiv Engineering And Casting Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sumesh Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar, Aged About 27 Years Director M/s Shiv Engineering And Casting Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Rajat Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 19 Years Director M/s Shiv Engineering And Casting Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 7 - Ajay Kumar Mishra, Notary, District Court Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. MPS Bhati, Advocate. For Respondents No. 4 to 6 : Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the letter for permission (Annexure P/15 dated 25.03.2022) and amended lease deed (Annexure P/16 dated 27.04.2022) in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and substitute the name of petitioner in 3 place of deceased Raj Kishore Mishra in the lease deed by way of amendment in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and order for enquiry as to why name of petitioners were not substituted in place of deceased husband Rajkishore Mishra and on the basis of false documents/affidavits name of directors of M/s Shiv Engineering and casting pvt. Ltd was substituted and take action against the persons who are involved in the entire transaction. 10.5 That, it is most humbly requested that necessary action may be taken against the notary for falsely preparing affidavits (Annexure P/13 dated 24.03.2022 and Annexure P/9 dated 06.01.2022), in the interest of justice. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and protect the possession of petitioners by restraining the directors of M/s Shiv Engineering and casting Pvt. Ltd. 10.7 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Industries Centre (DIC), Durg allotted a piece of land bearing Plot No. 34, admeasuring 1 acre, in favour of respondent No. 3, H.S. Mishra, and Rajkishore Mishra, husband of petitioner No. 1, on 4 27.10.1995. He submits that Rajkishore Mishra died on 27.04.2021 and, thereafter, petitioner No. 1 submitted applications before the DIC, Durg for substitution of her name in place of her deceased husband, but no action was taken on her applications. It is further submitted that, on the basis of a forged relinquishment deed and affidavit allegedly submitted by H.S. Mishra, the said land was subsequently transferred in favour of M/s Shiv Engineering and Casting Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners have never executed any relinquishment deed in respect of their rights in the said land, and despite making complaints to the concerned authorities, no action has been taken. Learned counsel further submits that the directors of M/s Shiv Engineering and Casting Pvt. Ltd. are now attempting to take possession of the land. According to the learned counsel, after the death of Rajkishore Mishra, the name of petitioner No. 1, being his widow and legal heir, ought to have been substituted on the basis of her applications dated 28.05.2021 and 21.06.2021, but the same was deliberately not done. It is further submitted that the request made by petitioner No. 1 to the General Manager, DIC, Durg was ignored and, on the basis of the alleged forged relinquishment deed and affidavit dated 25.03.2022 submitted by H.S. Mishra, the transfer in favour of Anish Kumar was permitted on the very same day, which, according to the learned counsel, was done with mala fide and dishonest intention and in collusion with the persons concerned. Learned counsel further submits that, after the 5 amendment of the lease deed on 27.04.2022, the subsequent issuance of a letter to H.S. Mishra and Anish Kumar seeking their response regarding the consent of petitioner No. 1 was merely an eyewash. It is also submitted that the affidavits dated 06.01.2022 and 24.03.2022 are forged and fabricated and, therefore, the subsequent amendment in the lease deed dated 27.04.2022 is illegal and has no legal effect. Learned counsel lastly submits that the persons involved in the alleged forgery, including the concerned notary, are liable to be proceeded against in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that after the death of Rajkishore Mishra, petitioner No. 1 applied for substitution of her name in place of her deceased husband. Thereafter, the land was transferred in favour of M/s Shiv Engineering and Casting Private Limited after examination and verification of the relevant documents and affidavits. It is further submitted that, when the petitioners raised an objection to the transfer, notices were issued to the concerned parties, but petitioner No. 1 failed to submit an affidavit in support of her complaint. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have not disclosed the complete and correct facts before this Court and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is 6 submitted that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and unsupported allegations, which cannot be properly decided in writ jurisdiction and may be adjudicated before the competent civil court. Learned counsel further submits that respondents No. 4 to 6 have acted bona fide and in accordance with the permissions granted by the competent authorities and have complied with the applicable conditions. It is also submitted that the petitioners have neither shown any illegality on the part of the answering respondents nor established any violation of their legal or constitutional rights. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and have also violated the status quo order passed by this Court. On these grounds, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the State as well as respondents No. 4 to 6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. Tahsildar and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 447 has observed as under:- “48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of 7 India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice. 49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences. 8 50. In the aforesaid context, we may look into the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269. In paragraph 6 at p. 1270 of the said judgment, this Court has been pleased to hold as follows:— “Under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised by the petition. Where an enquiry into complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined. The High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 51. This Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality, (1969) 3 SCC 769 : AIR 1970 SC 802 observed as follows:— “The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed 9 by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Art. 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Art. 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated., or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.” (Emphasis supplied) 10 52. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 INSC 906, this Court observed that:— “28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion. 29. Bearing the aforesaid legal principles in mind, we would have to consider whether, in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have dismissed the third writ petition of the first respondent and relegate him to a suit as there existed a serious dispute between the parties regarding taking of possession. More so, when the High Court, in the earlier round of litigation, refrained from taking up the said issue even though it had arisen between the parties. 11 30. No doubt, in a writ proceeding between the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not and while doing so, it may draw adverse inference against the State where the statutory mode of taking possession has not been followed [See State of UP v. Hari Ram (supra)]. However, where possession is stated to have been taken long ago and there is undue delay on the part of landholder in approaching the writ court, infraction of the prescribed procedure for taking possession would not be a determining factor, inasmuch as, it could be taken that the person for whose benefit the procedure existed had waived his right thereunder [See State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (supra)]. In such an event, the factum of actual possession would have to be determined on the basis of materials/evidence(s) available on record and not merely by finding fault in the procedure adopted for taking possession from the land holder. And if the writ court finds it difficult to determine such question, either for insufficient/inconclusive materials/evidence(s) on record or because oral evidence would also be required to form a definite opinion, it may relegate the 12 writ petitioner to a suit, if the suit is otherwise maintainable.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, the reliefs sought by the petitioner, it appears that the dispute is essentially between private parties and involves serious disputed questions of fact. Such disputed questions of fact cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should avail the appropriate remedy before the competent authority or the appropriate forum, as may be available to him in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach before the concerned authority or the appropriate forum by filing an appropriate application/petition for seeking the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition. If such an application/petition is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority/forum in accordance with law. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat