Judgment 1. Anamika Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., the respondent no.1 to this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the Society) filed a writ petition CWJC No. 1024/96R, before this Court challenging the letter/order dated 29.1.96 issued by the Station Commander, Station head-quarters (Army) Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the Society was asked not to commence construction on the land in question. Further prayer for appropriate writ, direction or order upon the respondents not to cause hindrance and harassment to the Society in carrying out its construction works at the proposed site was also made. 2. The case set up by the Society in the writ petition was that the land in question was requisitioned by the Government for the defence purposes during the second World War but the same has not been acquired so far. The case of the appellants who were respondents to the writ petition, on the other hand, was that the land which was initially requisitioned during the second World War for military purposes was ultimately acquired and the Society has no right to make any construction over it. 3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, held that controversy involved therein is of disputed question of facts which can only be resolved by a civil court on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. The learned Judge accordingly gave liberty to the aggrieved persons to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances. Although the learned Judge declined to interfere but declared the letter dated 29.1.96 issued by the Station Commander directing the Society not to make construction on the land as illegal and has set aside the same. Further direction was issued by the learned Judge to the respondents to the writ petition not to interfere with the petitioners and other similarly situated persons having right, title and possession over the land. Paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment containing the aforesaid findings/observations of the learned Judge are reproduced below: "5. From the claim aforesaid, it will be evident that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the lands/plots in question were acquired for construction of Air Field or not, which cannot be determined in absence of relevant evidence, including the notification of acquisition. From the claim aforesaid, it will be evident that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the lands/plots in question were acquired for construction of Air Field or not, which cannot be determined in absence of relevant evidence, including the notification of acquisition. For the said reason, I give liberty to the aggrieved person to move before a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief/declaration. So far as impugned direction as contained in Annexure-11 dated 29.1.96 is concerned, the counsel for the second and third respondents failed to show the power and jurisdiction of the Station Commander, who issued order of prohibition. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, there being disputed question of title and the order prohibition being without jurisdiction, I declare the order contained in letter dated 29.1.96 is illegal and set aside the same. 7. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner and others similarly situated persons, whoever having right, title and possession over the land, except by obtaining an order of court of competent jurisdiction." 4. The learned counsel for the parties have placed before us various documents including letters in support of their respective cases. The learned counsel for the Society tried to establish that the Society is the owner of the land which was disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to letter of the Land Acquisition Officer issued in the year 1972 to show that the land was, in fact, acquired but the relevant papers in connection therewith were sent by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Deputy Commissioner where they are not traceable now. Be that as it may, it is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the disputed questions regarding the title to the immovable property. In this connection, reference may be made to State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh & Ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 1018 ) wherein the Apex Court has laid down that the disputed question relating to title to the property cannot be resolved or adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge was fully justified to relegate the parties to the civil court for redressal of their grievances. 5. ( AIR 1992 SC 1018 ) wherein the Apex Court has laid down that the disputed question relating to title to the property cannot be resolved or adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge was fully justified to relegate the parties to the civil court for redressal of their grievances. 5. But there was no justification for the learned Judge to declare the letter/order dated 29.1.96 issued by the Station Commander directing the Society not to make any construction over the land as illegal. If the land belongs to the Central Government, the Station Commander was fully justified to issue such a letter. But the question regarding the ownership of the land has not been decided by the learned Judge. Under such circumstances, setting aside the said letter issued by the Station Commander and issuing direction to the Army headquarters, Ranchi, not to interfere with the petitioners-respondents right was definitely not justified. Such direction could have been issued only if the learned Judge has decided the question of ownership of the land in favour of the Society. But that was not done. 6. There is also no finding about the possession of the Society of the land recorded by the learned Judge. The case of the appellants is that they are in possession of the land and in this connection they have invited attention of the Court to the letters written by the Society to the Station Commander requesting thereby to remove the guards from the land. 7. In the absence of any finding regarding the possession and ownership of the land in favour of the Society, the learned Judge should not have declared the impugned letter as illegal and further no direction should have been issued for protection of the alleged right, title and possession of the land of the Society and others. 8. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed and that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the letter/order dated 29.1.96 has been set aside and the direction has been issued to the respondents to the writ petition not to interfere with the right, title and possession of the land of the Society and other similarly situated persons is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties will have the liberty to establish their claims before the competent civil court. No costs.