The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant for adjudicating disputed questions of title, and a regular suit is the proper remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between parties.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3.

2. Before, this Court embarks into the narration of the facts of the present case, it is implicit to enunciate that this writ petition raises an interesting aspect, wherein the old adage "a stitch in time saves nine", is squarely applicable to all the four corners of the present case. Essentially a dispute of demarcation between the U.P. Housing & Development Board and Navneet Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited has metamorphosed into a never ending dispute of right, title, entitlement and possession over a piece of land/plot between two warring private individuals. Alas!, even during pendency of the present issue before this Court for nearly two decades, neither the private individuals nor the public authority and not to speak of the Navneet Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited have taken any steps which would have resolved the issue of demarcation and made the disputed land/plot readily identifiable with the ownership right of either of the parties.

3. Briefly stating, the petitioner as being aggrieved against alleged inaction on the part of the U.P. Housing and Development Board for selling/allotting her Plot No.-17, Sector-12, Indira Nagar, Lucknow falling in khasra No.131 to private respondent no.2 and 3, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

"(a) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp. Parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the Plot in question of the petitioner situated at Khasra 131 Sector 12 Indiranagar Lucknow.

(b) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp. Party No. 2 & 3 not to takeover possession of the piece of land of Plot No.17 of the petitioner/

(c) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp. Party No.1 not to allot the plot of petitioner in question without being acquired to anyone else and to pay compensation thereof of mental agony and loss incurred to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that one Navneet Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, a society registered under the provisions of the Society Registration Act (hereinafter to be referred as "Samiti") had purchased two plots of land, including khasra No.131, Sector-12 Indiranagar ad-measuring about 2 bighas, which was demarcated by the society into 18 plots. The petitioner claims to have purchased one such plot being Plot No.17, ad-measuring about 2275 sq. feet vide a sale deed dated 19.05.1980. The petitioner has averred in her writ petition that the respondent no.1 permitted constructions on these plots in the year 1982 subject to deposit of development charges with respect to the said khasra by the persons who had been allotted these plots. Admittedly, construction had been made in all the aforesaid 18 plots, except for Plot No.17 belonging to petitioner, which could not be constructed due to bona fide reasons and as such the plot was lying vacant.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that Plot No.17 allotted to her by the Samiti in the year 1980 was again allotted/sold by respondent no.1 to the private respondents no.2 and 3 without any notice either to her or the Samiti. She alleges that the respondent no.1 has allotted her plot to respondents no.2 and 3 under some wrong perception and she came to knowledge of the same, when respondent no.2 and 3 tried to take possession and construct over the said plot. Thus, the fulcrum of the argument of the petitioner is three-fold:-

(i) Plot No.17 (new number-12/678) was allotted to her by Nanveet Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti in the year 1980 and ever since then the plot had been lying vacant under her possession;

(ii) Plot No.17 was never acquired b