Judgment : By consent of both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in these writ petitions is to forbear the respondents and their men from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties measuring to an extent of 0.07.0 hec comprised in Survey No.120/2B of an extent of 1.0.07.0 Hec under Patta No.80 and 0.83.5 hec comprised in Survey No.120/1A of an extant of 0.01.0 Hec under Patta No.65 respectively, situate at Thirumalaikuppan Village, via Madanur, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. .3. The case of the petitioners is that the above said extent of 0.07.0 Hec comprised in Survey No.120/2B of an extent of 0.07.0 Hec under Patta No.80 and 0.83.5 Hec comprised in Survey No.120/1A of an extent of 0.01.0 Hec under Patta No.65 respectively, situate at Thirumalaikuppan village, via Madanur, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District, absolutely belong to the petitioners and they have been given pattas. The officials of the respondents under the wrong information about the said lands treating them as poromboke lands, attempted to form a channel under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Petitioners issued counsel notice and in spite of receipt of the same, the respondents came and dug the land for the purpose of forming a new channel. It is claimed in the affidavits that the petitioners counsel wrongly issued notice stating that the above said properties are water course. These petitions are filed contending that the petitioners are owners of the said properties and the respondents have no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners properties. 4. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit and disputed the claim of the petitioners with regard to the petitioners title/ownership. The 4th respondent also issued a reply notice to the petitioners on 8. 2008 and stated that the said lands are classified as odai/pattai in the revenue records (A-Register) and the petitioners have no right over the said lands and therefore the Panchayat is entitled in law to widen and deslit the odai/pattai, which is also used as pathway by the Agriculturists. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the pleadings contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners and the respondents have no right to dig the land for forming the channel and to prevent the respondents from digging their lands, this writ petition is filed. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the pleadings contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners and the respondents have no right to dig the land for forming the channel and to prevent the respondents from digging their lands, this writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the claim of the petitioners are already disputed by the 4th respondent by sending counsel notice and if the petitioners have got any right, they can agitate only through the Civil Forum by adducing oral and documentary evidence and the disputed questions of facts cannot be agitated before this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate to the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. .8. The subject matter of issue in these writ petitions are about the right of the petitioners in the above mentioned immovable properties. The 4th respondent contends that the petitioners are not the owners of the said area and the said lands are shown as Odai/Pattai in the A Register maintained by the Revenue Department. Hence admittedly the facts about the ownership of the disputed lands is in dispute. 9. The said factual aspect cannot be gone into in these writ petitions and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, if the petitioners have got any right, they have to establish their right over the properties by adducing oral and documentary evidence before a proper legal forum, namely civil Court. 10. Whether the High Court is entitled to go into the disputed questions of fact. In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is already decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. .(a) In Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Others AIR 1976 SC 475 : (1976) 1 SCC 292 the view taken by the High Court that disputed questions of fact are to be left open to be decided before the Civil Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. .(a) In Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Others AIR 1976 SC 475 : (1976) 1 SCC 292 the view taken by the High Court that disputed questions of fact are to be left open to be decided before the Civil Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. .(b) In the decision in Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 4 SCC 317 : (2003) 2 MLJ 49 : 2003-I-LLJ-849, it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court said as follows at p. 53 of MLJ: "19. The question as to whether the workmen concerned had been continuously working for a period of ten years so as to enable them o derive benefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India (1994) 5 SCC 304 was essentially a question of fact...." In paragraph 22, the Honourable Supreme Court further held as follows: "22. ..... a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Constitution Bench in this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1 ....." .(c) In Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 256 the Honourable Supreme Court held that the statement of the appellant or the 5th respondent was correct or not could not ordinarily be tested in writ proceedings and It is well known that in writ petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact could not be entertained. .(d) In yet another decision in Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand, (2007) 7 MLJ 687, the Supreme Court held as follows at p. 687 if MLJ: "5. ..... Since the facts were seriously disputed by the appellant and no factual finding could be recorded without consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, it was not an appropriate case in which the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction. The parties could have approached a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter". 11. ..... Since the facts were seriously disputed by the appellant and no factual finding could be recorded without consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, it was not an appropriate case in which the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction. The parties could have approached a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter". 11. In view of the above settled legal position and having regard to the facts in these cases, which are in dispute, I am of the view that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable and consequently the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. The writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, if they want to establish their alleged right over the properties in question. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.