Article 226 writ relief is unavailable where disputed land title questions require evidence and a civil trial.

A writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper forum where determination of land rights depends on disputed facts, the precise scope of sanctions, and the terms of annexed agreements. If the foundational facts are not established on the record and the controversy cannot be resolved without evidence, the writ court should avoid deciding the merits. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is a regular civil suit, where the parties can lead evidence and have the title dispute adjudicated on a proper factual basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable for deciding disputed questions of fact and complex issues of title and rights in land.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the precise nature and extent of the parties' rights in the plots, the terms of the sanctions, and the agreements said to be annexed to them. These foundational facts were not proved by the record before the High Court, and the controversy could not be satisfactorily resolved without evidence. In such a situation, the writ court was not the proper forum, because it was hazardous to enter upon the merits without a firm factual foundation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for adjudicating the dispute on merits, and the parties were left to pursue their remedy by a regular suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not decide a controversy under Article 226 where the relief depends on disputed facts and evidence and the proper adjudication requires a regular civil trial.

---