JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The case of the petitoiner in this writ petition is that the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (for short, ‘the B.D.A.’) allotted two houses, HIG 1/69 and HIG 1/70 in the Kapila Prasad Housing Scheme on 18.1.1994 to the opp.party No.2. As per the said housing scheme, the opp.party No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.4,65,408/- with the B.D.A. towards the earnest money. Under the said scheme, the sale price of each of the house was fixed at Rs.3,30,000/- for out-right purchase and at Rs.4,84,500/- for purchase in instalments. The opp.party No.2 opted to pay the price in instalments. The opp.party No.2 took possession of the two houses on 13.10.1999 but he found several deficiencies in the two houses. He wrote to the Vice-Chairman of the B.D.A. on 23.10.1999 to make necessary repairs and replace¬ment but the repairs and replacement were not done by the B.D.A. The further case of the petitoiner is that the opp.party No.2 ap¬pointed opp.party No.3 as authorised agent for entering into an agreement of sale/house rent and to receive advance payment in cash from the intending purchaser/tenant by the letter of authori¬ty dated 31.7.1999. But since the two houses were not habitable, the opp.party No.2 persuaded the petitioner to reside in the two houses and make necessary repairs and continue to maintain the two houses. The opp.party No.2, however, made it clear to the petitioner that he need not pay any rent but he has to carry on the repairs and maintain the two houses and as and when the opp.party No.2 decides to sell the two houses, he shall give preference to the petitioner. In view of the said promise made by the opp.party No.2, the petitioner occupied both the houses in January, 2000 and spent Rs.50,000/- towards repairs and replace¬ment in the said two houses. The opp.party No.2 then requested the petitioner to remove all his articles stored in HIC 1/69 to enable the opp.party No.2 to carry on some necessary repairs. The petitioner removed all his articles stored in the said HIG 1/69 and handed over the key to the opp.party No.2 in April, 2000. The petitoiner, however, continued to occupy house HIG 1/70. The opp.party No.2 then requested the petitioner to remove all his articles stored in HIC 1/69 to enable the opp.party No.2 to carry on some necessary repairs. The petitioner removed all his articles stored in the said HIG 1/69 and handed over the key to the opp.party No.2 in April, 2000. The petitoiner, however, continued to occupy house HIG 1/70. The petitioner got electricity and water connection in the name of the opp.party No.2 in the said house at his own cost and as per the agreement, the petitioner did not pay any rent to the opp.party No.2 for his occupation. In December, 2000, however, the opp.party No.2 informed the petitioner that he wants to dis¬pose of both the houses to meet the demands of the B.D.A. In January, 2001, the opp.party No.3 acting as the agent of the opp. party No.2 asked he petitioner to pay him Rs.50,000/- as ad¬vance for purchase of the house. The petitioner arranged a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and paid the same to the opp.party No.3 on 16.1.2001 and the opp.party No.3 received the same with the promise to sell the house to the petitioner as soon as no objection certificate is received from the opp.party No.1 and a document was also signed by the opp.party No.3 a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5 in which the opp.party No.3 has ac¬knowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the petition¬er for and on behalf of the opp.party No.2 as advance payment in respect of hire-out and/or agreement to sell of either of his houses HIG1/69 or HIG 1/70 in the B.D.A. Colony at Kapila Pra¬sad. Thereafter, notice dated 28.9.2001 was served on the opp.party No.2 by the Estate Officer, B.D.A. that he was in unauthorised occupation of the premises HIG/1/69 and HIG 1/70 and asking him to show-cause as to why the opp.party No.2 will not be evicted from the said premises. The opp.party No.2 was, thereaf¬ter, given notice dated 15.10.2001 by the Estate Officer, B.D.A. to appear for hearing failing which the matter will be disposed of ex parte. The opp.party No.2 was, thereaf¬ter, given notice dated 15.10.2001 by the Estate Officer, B.D.A. to appear for hearing failing which the matter will be disposed of ex parte. Thereafter, by order dated 31.01.2002 passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 the Estate Offi¬cer, B.D.A. has ordered that the petitioner and all persons who are in occupation of the said two houses will vacate the same within fifteen days. By a subsequent letter dated 28.5.2003, however, the opp.party No.2 was given time to deposit the out-standing amount for the said two houses amounting to Rs.9,79,991/- till June, 2003. The petitioner has alleged that the very purpose of the said letter dated 28.5.2003 of the B.D.A. to the opp.party No.2 is to help the opp.party No.2 to arrange a purchaser of the said two houses at a higher price and sell the said two houses to make illegal gains. After getting the said letter dated 28.5.2003 the opp.party No.2 sent the opp.party No.4 to inspect the houses. The opp.party No.4 thereafter agreed to purchase the houses and the opp.party No.3 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of opp.party No.4 to transact all matters deal¬ing with the said house with the B.D.A. and take over possession of the houses and in particular, house HIG 1/70 by evicting the petitioner by any means. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for directing the B.D.A. to accept the arrear dues in respect of the house HIG 1/70 in Kapil Prasad B.D.A. Colony and other dues, if any, as per norms of the B.D.A. and transfer/allot the said house in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the B.D.A. not to accept any amount either from the opp.party No.2 or from any other person including opp.parties 3, 4 and 5 and not to issue no objection certificate in favour of any person other than the petitioner and not to evict the petitioner from the house. 2. On 22.7.2003 the Court after hearing Mr. D. P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner issued notice to the opp.par¬ties, both in the writ petition and Misc.Case No.6689 of 2003 in which a prayer has been made for interim orders during the pend¬ency of the writ petition. 2. On 22.7.2003 the Court after hearing Mr. D. P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner issued notice to the opp.par¬ties, both in the writ petition and Misc.Case No.6689 of 2003 in which a prayer has been made for interim orders during the pend¬ency of the writ petition. The Court also passed orders on 22.7.2003 directing that in the meanwhile, status quo will be maintained with regard to possession in respect of House No.1/70, Kapila Prasad, B.D.A. Colony. After receiving the notice, Misc. Case No.8765 of 2003 has been filed by the opp.party No.2 for vacating the said order of status quo. 3. When the matter was taken up after notice, Mr. D.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that law is well settled that a statutory authority is bound to act fairly and cannot show any undue favour to anyone. But in this case, the B.D.A. is trying to show undue favour to opp.party No.2 who is a politician by allowing him to sell the house and make illegal gains at the cost of the petitioner. He submitted that the au¬thority is to promote and secure development and for that purpose undertake housing scheme as would be clear from the provisions of Sections 7 and 21 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act. He submitted that the allotment in favour of the opp.party No.2 has been cancelled for default in making payment and the opp.party No.2 cannot be allowed by the B.D.A to make payment at this stage and make illegal gains. According to Mr. Sarangi, this is a fit case in which the High Court should interfere in the unfair action of the B.D.A. in allowing the opp.party No.2 to make pay¬ment of the balance amount towards the sale price and revive the allotment in his favour despite cancellation of the allotment made earlier by the B.D.A. He further submitted that since the petitoiner has been in possession of the house and has spent a lot of money from his own pocket on the maintenance and repairs of the house and has paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- to the opp.party No.2 for the house, the petitioner should be permitted to pay the dues in respect of the house HIG 1/70 as per the norms of the B.D.A. and the B.D.A. be directed to transfer the allot¬ment of the said house HIG 1/70 in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Sarangi cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 S.C. 1628 and M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy etc. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, AIR 1980 S.C. 1992 for the proposition that the State and the instrumentalities of the State have to act in a fair and reasonable manner and in the public interest while exercising their discretion in granting largess or awarding contracts. 4. Mr. B. Rath, learned counsel for the opp.party No.2, on the other hand, relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp.party No.2, submitted that the opp.party No.2 had de¬faulted in making payment of the instalment and has become a defaulter but by now he has cleared the entire outstanding dues of the B.D.A. and there is nothing to be paid to the B.D.A. He further submitted that the opp.party No.2 has already become the absolute owner of the two houses ad has been accepted as such by the B.D.A.. He also submitted relying on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the opp.party No.2 that the peti¬tioner had some difficulties regarding accommodation of his family at Bhubaneswar and requested the opp.party No.3 who is intimately known to him that he and his family be allowed to reside temporarily in the house HIG 1/70 and to keep his belong¬ings in the HIG 1/69. The opp.party No.3 realising the helpless condition of the petitioner allowed him to stay in HIG 1/70 and to keep his belongings in HIG 1/69 without the knowledge of the opp.party No.2. When the opp.party No.2 came to know of this arrangement, he asked the opp.party No.3 to ask the petitioner to vacate the houses but the petitioner did not vacate the same on one plea or the other. Ultimately, the petitioner removed his belongings from HIG 1/69 but did not vacate HIG 1/70 despite assurances made by him from time to time. The opp.party No.2 has, in the meanwhile, entered into an agreement with the opp.party No.5 for sale of the house HIG 1/70 but on account of the ex parte interim order of status quo passed by this Court, the petitioner is not vacating the house and in the circumstances, the sale cannot be effected in favour of the opp.party No.5. Mr. Mr. Rath vehemently submitted that the opp.party No.2 had at no stage proposed to sell or give on tenancy any of the two houses to the petitioner. He submitted that it is well settled that where there are factual disputes between the parties and where the dispute is a private dispute between two private parties, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. He argued that this is a fit case in which the High Court should dismiss the writ petition and vacate the interim order of status quo. 5. The petitioner’s case in this writ petition is that the petitioner has spent a huge amount of money and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the opp.party No.2 on the promise made by the opp.party No.2 that he will ultimately sell either of the two houses to him. But now, the opp.party No.2 is trying to sell the said houses to the opp.party No.5 and make some illegal gains. This case of the petitoiner is disputed by the opp.party No.2 in his counter affidavit and the stand of the opp.party No.2 is that the opp.party No.3 has allowed the petitioner to occupy the houses without the knowledge of the opp.party No.2 and the opp.party No.2 has, in the meanwhile, paid the entire dues of the B.D.A. and is entitled to sell the houses to the opp.party No.5. 6. The aforesaid dispute, in our considered opinion, is essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and the opp.party No.2 relating to immovable property and such a private dispute cannot be entertained by the High Court in a writ peti¬tion under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case of Mohan Pandey and another v. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and others, AIR 1993 S.C. 1225 , the Supreme Court held : “.........It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating tot property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is al¬leged.....” This decision has been followed by the Supreme Court in Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1517. 7. 7. Moreover, the aforesaid dispute between the petitioner and the opp.party No.2 involves determination of disputed facts inasmuch as the opp.party No.2 has disputed the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition that the opp.party No.2 through his agent had permitted the petitioner to occupy the houses and incurred the expenses on repairs and replacement and had promised to sell the house to the petitioner in case he decides to sell the same and until these disputed facts are resolved, no writ or direction can be issued to the B.D.A. to protect the rights of the petitioner. But it has been held in number of cases that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be deter¬mined on admitted facts or facts established by affidavits and that the appropriate remedy for determination of a disputed question of fact is not a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution but a civil suit. (See Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India and another, AIR 1957 S.C.529, The Union of India and others v. Ghaus Mohammad, AIR 1961 S.C. 1526 and State of Rajas¬than v. Bhawani Singh and others, AIR 1992 S.C. 1018 ). 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to admit this writ petition and we accordingly dismiss the same leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court if he is so advised. The interim order of status quo passed on 22.7.2003 is accordingly vacated. M. M. DAS, J. I agree. Application dismissed.