Writ Courts Under Article 226 Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Factual Questions on Land Nature; Expert Committee Investigation is the Proper Course: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-09-01

Rajasthan High Court Orders Expert Committee to Settle Mining Access Dispute, Citing Limits of Writ Jurisdiction

JAIPUR – In a significant ruling on the scope of writ jurisdiction, the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the formation of a high-level expert committee to resolve a factual dispute over land classification, declining to adjudicate the matter itself. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case of M/s Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan , held that writ courts are not the appropriate forum to decide contested factual questions that require technical evaluation and on-ground verification.

The court directed the government to constitute an expert committee comprising high-ranking officials from the Revenue, Forest, and Panchayati Raj departments to determine the true nature of the disputed land within six weeks.

Case Background

The petitioner, a mining lease holder M/s Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand, filed a writ petition challenging a state government order dated June 11, 2025. This order had rejected the District Collector's recommendation to declare certain parcels of land (Khasra Nos. 925, 926, and 927) as a public way. The petitioner claimed this was the only access path to their mining area and had been used for over 20 years, but was recently blocked by private respondents.

The dispute centered on the classification of the land. The petitioner argued that the land was primarily pasture with a small section of 'pokhar' (water body) land. The state and the intervenor, the local Gram Panchayat, countered that the land was protected pasture and a 'Nari' (seasonal river/catchment area) which could not be allotted or used as a private way.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions: - Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Agarwal, representing the petitioner, argued that the government's refusal was based on a misinterpretation of legal precedents, specifically the Abdul Rahman case, which he claimed was later diluted. - He contended that the petitioner was not seeking ownership (Khatedari rights) but only a right of way, which had been previously supported by the District Magistrate and for which the Gram Panchayat had initially given a no-objection certificate. - The petitioner even offered to surrender an equivalent portion of their allotted land for pasture use.

Respondent's and Intervenor's Submissions: - Additional Advocate General Mr. G.S. Gill argued that the land in question included a 'Pokhar cum Nari' (water body and seasonal river), which is a catchment area that cannot be allotted. He noted that the Gram Panchayat now opposed the move. - Mr. Gill highlighted a recent government sanction of ₹14.81 lakhs for plantation under the 'Amrit Sarovar' scheme near the disputed land, reinforcing its ecological importance. - Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate for the Gram Panchayat, emphasized that water bodies are protected under court orders and cannot be used for such purposes.

Court's Reasoning and Key Observations

After hearing the arguments, Justice Dhand identified the core issue as a factual dispute that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, was ill-equipped to resolve. The judgment noted the conflicting claims:

"Whether it is ‘Nari/Pokhar’ land or not? Whether there exists any water body or not? Whether such land can be allowed to be used as a way or not? All these disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its writ jurisdiction..."

The court emphasized that determining the nature of land requires more than just reviewing revenue records; it necessitates a technical and practical assessment on the ground.

"Identification and protection of disputed water bodies require technical expert evaluation. Mere revenue record entries are not sufficient and the ground conditions/realities must be verified by the competent Expert Authority."

The Final Verdict and Its Implications

The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the state respondents to immediately constitute an 'Expert Committee'. This committee is tasked with: 1. Examining old revenue records and the practical ground realities of the land. 2. Conducting a physical inspection to ascertain if a water body actually exists. 3. Recommending a course of action in line with existing laws and judicial precedents.

This decision sets a clear precedent that when complex, technical, and disputed facts are at the heart of a case—particularly concerning environmental and land-use matters—the appropriate recourse is an investigation by a specialized body rather than a summary adjudication by a writ court. It underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that decisions are based on thorough factual verification, especially when public resources like pasture lands and water bodies are at stake.