ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Title to the property is in serious dispute and has to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Such a decision cannot properly be taken in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. When we pointed out this position, and were about to direct dismissal of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn and Jhe respondent should have the right to institute appropriate civil proceedings for establishing his title. That in our opinion is the right course to adopt. The railway authorities should be free to take over the property and utilise the same for their purpose. The respondents would not be entitled to any interim relief. 4. In case respondent 1 succeeds to establish his title, the appellants before us have undertaken to compensate respondent 1 amicably for the property in dispute and failing an amicable settlement, they have further undertaken to take action under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the property. 5. The appeal is allowed subject to what we have said above. The order of the High Court is vacated and the writ petition before the High Court is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. There shall be a direction that in case the suit as contemplated above is instituted, the same shall be disposed of within one year of its institution. 7. Keeping in view the history of the litigation, we direct that respondent 1 shall be paid a consolidated sum of Rs 5000 (Rupees Five thousand only) by the appellants by way of costs within two months from today. For Citation : 1987 (Supp) SCC 609.