V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ Appeal is filed against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 21441/2002, by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26. 11. 2002. ( 2 ) IT is submitted by Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order dated 08. 04. 2002 passed by the government confirming the grant of 1 Acre of land in Sy. No. 32 of Malathahalli Village, bangalore North Taluk, in favour of the appellant. Learned Counsel submitted that the order dated 08. 04. 2002 was passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in WA. No. 6367/1999 dated 01. 02. 2000 after getting measured the land comprised in Sy. No. 32 and after finding that 01 Acre of land was available for grant to the appellant-Society and the said question of fact arrived at by the Government could not be disturbed in exercise of Article 226 of the constitution. ( 3 ) SRI Seshadri, learned High Court Government Advocate submitted that 01 Acre of land available in Sy. No. 32 has been granted in favour of the appellant and therefore, the grant is confirmed and the order dated 08. 04. 2002 has been passed and the said finding has been arrived at on the basis of the report submitted by the Land Survey Officer. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel, Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay, appearing for the 7th respondent - Writ petition submitted that : Sy. No. 32 comprised of 15 Acres, out of the same, an extent of 13 Acres was granted in favour of the University and respondent No. 6 Bangalore Development Authority, has already formed the road and no land was available for grant in favour of the appellant society and therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the said order dated 08. 04. 2002. He further submitted that this Court has already observed in the earlier Writ Appeal no. 6367/1999 that road has not been found in the land granted to the University and therefore, it was not open to the Government now to say that the land was available for grant to the appellant-society. ( 5 ) WE have given anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 5 ) WE have given anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 6 ) AFTER filing of this appeal and hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this Court wanted to find out the factual position and directed the Government to submit a report about the factual position. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 25. 08. 2003, the Deputy Director of land Record visited the spot in the presence of representatives of the parties and has submitted the sketch. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the University has filed objections to the said sketch stating that the same is not in accordance with the actual measurement of the property and therefore, they have not signed the mahazar, though they were present. It is not correct to say that the officials of the University had admitted the measurement made by the Deputy Director of Land records. ( 8 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the material on record that land to an extent of 20 Acres 35 Guntas in Sy. Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of Malathahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, and extent of 94 Acres 20 Guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 22, 23, 26, 27, 33 and 34 in Nagadevanahalli, Bangalore South taluk, were acquired by the Government for the development of Bangalore University Campus and the University was handed over possession of the lands comprised in the said survey Nos. , on 14. 05. 1974. Land bearing Sy. No. 32 measures 15 Acres. Out of 15 Acres, 13 Acres was granted to the Bangalore University and 02 Acres was earmarked for formation of the road. However, the Government granted an extent of 01 Acre of land in favour of the 7th respondent appellant herein on 13. 12. 1995. As against the same, W. P. No. 139/1998 was filed by the university contending that the land was not available for allotment to the 7th respondent-appellant as out of 15 Acres of land in Sy. No. 32, 13 Acres has been granted to the university and 02 Acres has been earmarked for formation of the road. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 08. 07. 1999 and Annexure 'd' therein dated 13. 12. 1995 was quashed. No. 32, 13 Acres has been granted to the university and 02 Acres has been earmarked for formation of the road. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 08. 07. 1999 and Annexure 'd' therein dated 13. 12. 1995 was quashed. However, it was observed that it is open to the 7th respondent in the Writ Petition - appellant herein to move the Government and if apart from the road and the area in possession of the Writ petitioner-university, any other area is available, the Government may consider allotting such area to the petitioner-University and accordingly, the said Writ Petition was allowed with the above said direction. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed W. A. No. 6367/1999 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 01. 02. 2000, disposed of the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it was observed "the question raised before this Court pertains to an action of the Government in grant of land and the same can very well be resolvedly the Government itself through its survey and settlement Department and on ascertaining whether keeping in view the grant made to the Bangalore University and construction of road on the land could have at all allotted any extent of land in Survery No. 32 to any other person". ( 9 ) THEREAFTER, the Government called for the report from the Department of Land Survery and revenue Settlement and it was found that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 32 was 15 Acres out of which 18 Guntas was included in Sy. No. 34 and therefore, land measuring 14 Acres 22 guntas in Sy. No. 32 was available and out of the same, the University was allotted 13 Acres. Road has been formed in the land that had been allotted to the University to an extent of 02 acres 13 Guntas and the University was in possession of 10 Acres 27 Guntas and therefore, 01 acre of land was available for allotment to the appellant-Society. Accordingly, the Government passed an order on 08. 04. 2002 confirming the grant of land to kanyakumari Education Society and directing the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban district, to initiate further proceedings in accordance with Land Grant Rules. Accordingly, the Government passed an order on 08. 04. 2002 confirming the grant of land to kanyakumari Education Society and directing the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban district, to initiate further proceedings in accordance with Land Grant Rules. This order of the government was challenged before the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 21441/2002 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 26. 11. 2002 has set aside the order dated 08. 04. 2002 (Annexure 'k' to the Writ Petition) and has allowed the Writ Petition. ( 10 ) THE Deputy Director of Land Records, Bangalore, has filed a report along with the sketch pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of this appeal, to find out the factual position regarding the fact as to whether the land was available for grant to the appellant. It is clear from the report dated 31. 01. 2004 that the University was allotted 13 Acres in erstwhile Sy. No. 32. The said extent of land was phoded by Phode/durasti order No. ADLR/ dpr/34/1990-91 and a new survey No. has been assigned as Sy. No. 118. After the grant of the said extent of 13 Acres of land in the erstwhile sy. No. 32 to the University, an extent of 01 Acre 22 Guntas of land remains as per akarband. e. , survey records. It is stated that cart track running from North to South had been in existence for several decades. The B. D. A. , has widened the cart road taking a portion of the land granted to the Bangalore University. As per the spot inspection, the total extent of Sy. No. 118 is 13 Acres and 7 Guntas including the road. Apart from the road, the University is in occupation of the land to an extent of 10 Acres and 34 Guntas. The remaining extent of 1 Acre and 15 Guntas of land in erstwhile Sy. No. 32 is towards the west of the road, as shown in the sketch in yellow colour, out of which 1 Acre of land has been granted to the Appellant herein. The entire extent of the road falls within Sy. No. 118 and the extent of the land occupied by the road is 2 Acres and 13 Guntas. No. 32 is towards the west of the road, as shown in the sketch in yellow colour, out of which 1 Acre of land has been granted to the Appellant herein. The entire extent of the road falls within Sy. No. 118 and the extent of the land occupied by the road is 2 Acres and 13 Guntas. The balance of 10 Acres and 34 Guntas still remains in the custody, possession and enjoyment of the Bangalore University and the remaining extent of 01 Acre and 15 guntas is available in Sy. No. 32. However, the University has objected to the sketch prepared by the Deputy Director of Land Records. Though it is admitted that four officers of the 7th respondent were present when the measurement was taken. It is contended in the objection statement that the measurement is not proper and the road ought not to have been included in the land that is granted to the University. Therefore, it is clear from the above said material on record that there is a serious dispute as to whether the land was available for grant to the appellant and can be granted by the Government and the exact extent of land which was put in possession of the University pursuant to the allotment of erstwhile Sy. No. 32 and as to whether the road was formed in the land allotted to the University or apart from the land that was allotted to the University and unless these disputed questions of fact are resolved, it would not be possible to arrive at any finding on the question of fact. It is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits and cannot be gone into in exercise of power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute regarding title to and as to possession of immovable property cannot be gone into in the Writ Petition as the same cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits only, but, requires detailed investigation including recording of the oral evidence of the parties, which can be done only before the regular civil Court. The dispute regarding title to and as to possession of immovable property cannot be gone into in the Writ Petition as the same cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits only, but, requires detailed investigation including recording of the oral evidence of the parties, which can be done only before the regular civil Court. It is similarly well settled that where disputed questions of fact are involved in a writ Petition, this Court cannot exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution as it would not be a proper remedy and these questions could be left to be decided by the regular Civil courts dealing with the question of title and possession. The Supreme Court has held that it is well settled legal position that where disputed questions of fact are involved, the petition under article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy as these questions can be decided on the basis of investigation only. AIR 1998 SC 3412 CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPORATION OF orissa, LTD. , v. SUKUMANI DAS. It is also held that the case relating to immovable property are governed by ordinary civil law and Writ Jurisdiction should not be exercised in such cases unless circumstances are exceptional. ( AIR1992 SC 1780 , jt1992 (1 )SC 50 , 1991 (2 )SCALE1434 , (1992 )1 SCC414 , [1991 ]supp3 SCR558 , 1992 (1 )UJ513 (SC ) SMT. PARVATHI BAI SUBANARAO NALAWADE v. ANWARALI husanali MAKANI AND ORS. AMZAD ALI @ AMZAD KHAN AND ORS. v. STATE of ASSAM. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving a finding with regard to the disputed questions of fact about the allotment and possession of the property and about the availability of land for being granted to the appellant-Society. The learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the Civil court as the question requires a detailed investigation, which cannot be done in the Writ Petition. However, we do not wish to express any opinion on the merits of the case as we have to relegate the Writ petitioner to the regular Civil Court for resolution of the dispute pertaining to immovable property in accordance with law. However, we do not wish to express any opinion on the merits of the case as we have to relegate the Writ petitioner to the regular Civil Court for resolution of the dispute pertaining to immovable property in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and the parties have to be relegated to the ordinary Civil court for resolution of the disputed questions of fact. Accordingly, we pass the following order: the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated 26. 11. 2002 passed in W. P. No. 21441/2002 is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits as stated however, dismissal of the Writ Petition will not preclude the parties from approaching the regular Civil Court for declaration of their right pertaining to the immovable property comprised in erstwhile Sy. No. 32 to work out their right in accordance with law. It is also made clear that any observation made in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal will not prejudice the case of either side. However, having regard to the circumstances in the given case, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.