The court emphasized that issues of possession and ownership of land could only be resolved through a title suit and were not appropriate for adjudication in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner has disclosed in the writ petition that an earlier writ petition which was filed in the same interest by an organization called 'Vimukti Jati Vikas Parishad, Rajkiya Unnayan Basti Kalyanpur, Kanpur' against the State (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11069 of 2004) was dismissed by the Division Bench on 8 March 2007 on the ground that the issues which were raised in regard to the possession and ownership of land would require an adjudication into complicated questions of fact and only a title suit could resolve the issue. Hence, it was held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be an appropriate remedy. For convenience of reference, we extract below a copy of the order dated 8 March 2007 passed by a Division Bench comprising of Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, as his Lordship then was, and Justice Umeshwar Pandey:

"This writ petition is directed seeking the relief for quashing the order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Kanpur Nagar and also for a relief of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the allotment of residential building in favour of the occupants of the settlement and protect the interest of the sewing factory and other constructions built for the development of the education and social life of the resident of that settlement. The petitioners claim the right and title in the property in regard to which the impugned order (Anneuxre-4) dated 24.1.2004 has been passed. Under the aforesaid order, the permission has been given by the District Social Welfare Officer, Kanpur Nagar to the Executive Engineer for proceeding with the constructions over the disputed land.

Since the land in question is claimed to be in possession and ownership of the petitioners and in order to adjudicate upon this claim complicated question of fact is required to be enquired into. The relief protecting the interest of the petitioners in regard to the said property is available only in a title suit before the competent Civil Court and any interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot legally be made by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition, therefore, cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. It may be, however, provided that the petitioners may approach the Civil Court in a title suit within the stipulated time. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

The petitioners are given a liberty to prefer a title suit for the relief of permanent injunction before the competent Court of jurisdiction and this may be instituted within a period of three months hereinafter.

Till the expiry of the aforesaid period, the constructions which are already there in existence in the disputed property shall not be damaged or demolished nor the petitioners be dispossessed therefrom."

2. The petitioner has also disclosed that thereafter two suits have been filed before the Civil Court which are in fact pending. Among them is Suit No.1590 of 2008 before the Civil Court at Kanpur Nagar in which it has been stated that certain interim orders have been passed. Hence, having regard to this background, and having due regard to the order of a coordinate Bench of this Court declining to entertain the petition, which was filed in 2007, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate or proper for the Court to entertain the present writ petition.

3. We are in agreement with the view expressed in the judgment of the Division Bench to the effect that the issues which are sought to be raised in these proceedings essentially turn upon the lawfulness of possession and title, if any, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, we clarify that the dismissal of these proceedings shall not be construed as a rejection of the claim on merits.

4. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.