Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent not to put up any bore well and water tank in the petitioner's patta land situate at Kulandaivelu Nagar layout bearing Plots Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 including shopping plot to an extent of 15771 sq.ft comprised in OS.R.No.88/2 and sub divided S.R.No. 88/2A2 at Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vacant land to an extent of 15771 sq.ft situated at Kulandaivelu Nagar Layout bearing Plot Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 including shopping plot to an extent of 15771 sq.ft comprised in OS.R.No.88/2 and sub divided S.R.No. 88/2A2 at Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. The said extent of land was purchased from the vendor viz., Viswanthan by way of registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.288/1991 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur. It is claimed in the affidavit that the petitioner is paying the statutory dues and the authorities concerned issued patta bearing Patta No.804. It is alleged in the affidavit that the fourth respondent without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity attempted to put up a bore well and water tank in the petitioner's land on 11.8.2007. Alleging the said fact, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. Initially injunction was granted and the fourth respondent-Panchayat filed a counter affidavit and to vacate the interim order. In the affidavit filed in support of vacating the interim order petition, it is stated that the area occupied by the petitioner is only 11835 sq.ft and not 15771 sq.ft. The marking of the shop is not entirely belong to the petitioner's land only, the upper portion of the land is owned by the petitioner and the lower portion of the land is owned by the Panchayat. The bore well is put up and constructed within the lower portion, which is not in the land of the petitioner. Considering the said aspect, interim order granted was also vacated by this Court, by order dated 18.9.2007, subject to the result of the writ petition. 4. The bore well is put up and constructed within the lower portion, which is not in the land of the petitioner. Considering the said aspect, interim order granted was also vacated by this Court, by order dated 18.9.2007, subject to the result of the writ petition. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner's land is only measuring 11835 sq.ft and the approved plan also establishes the fact of existence of the Panchayat land in the shop area, which is not marked by the petitioner in the alleged plan. Hence, there is no impediment on the part of the Panchayat as alleged in the affidavit in digging the bore well and constructing the water tank, as the same is constructed in the Panchayat land only. 5. Since, there is a dispute regarding the land when the bore well was digged and water tank is constructed, the writ petition filed by the petitioner forbearing the respondents is not maintainable. 6. Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is entitled to go into the disputed facts is already decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. (a) In AIR 1976 SC 475 : (1976) 1 SCC 292 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad and Others) 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 reported in (2003) 4 SCC 317 : AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 2 MLJ 49 (Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another) it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court held as follows: "19. The question as to whether the workmen concerned had been continuously working for a period of ten years so as to enable them to derive benefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K.Pandacase ( (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. ......" 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 of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers ( (2001) 7 SCC 1 ). ........." (c) In (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others), 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 reported in (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (SC) (Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand), the Supreme Court held as follows: "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." (e)In the decision reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R.Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar) the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situation, and writ of mandamus cannot be sought for, especially when determination of the questions involved did not merely involve interpretation of documents alone, but require adducing of oral evidence, and writ proceedings cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. (f)In the decision reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers) and 2005 (5) CTC 695 (SC) (S.D.O.Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram) also the Honourable Supreme Court held that disputed facts cannot be decided in writ petition and parties can approach the appropriate forum. (g)In (2011) 2 SCC 782 (Kannaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra) it is held that if an effective alternate remedy is available to the party concerned, the High Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. (g)In (2011) 2 SCC 782 (Kannaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra) it is held that if an effective alternate remedy is available to the party concerned, the High Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The bore well and water tank have already been put up and water supply is being given. The interim order was also vacated as early as 18.9.2007. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner has got any legal right over the site where the bore well is digged and water tank is constructed, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to establish his right, if so advised. No costs.