Judgment :- 1. Petitioner, who allegedly purchased the property measuring an extent of 425 cents in Survey No.729/2 at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from interfering with his possession. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said property was purchased by him from his vendors by Document No.4085/2005 dated 28.11.2005 and his vendors purchased the said property on 11.11.1981. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner's vendors secured permission from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning for forming a layout in the year 1983. At the time of securing permission for formation of layout, a portion of the property was shown towards common user. It is alleged in the affidavit that his vendors did not implement the scheme and had chosen to sell the property to the petitioner. The respondent herein demanded the said property relying on the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning for common user. It is the contention of the petitioner that even if it is earmarked as a common area, members of the colony alone will have a right to insist for its maintenance and an outsider cannot take over the land for maintenance. On 6.2.2007 the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent to allow him to enjoy the property without threat of dispossession and even after the said letter the respondent having threatened, petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. The respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land at any point of time and under the sale deed dated 28.11.2005 the petitioner purchased an extent of 40 cents in S.No.729/2 from M/s.Sriram and R.Venkatesh, which was registered as Document No.4085/2005 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri. Petitioner's vendors have developed the property totally measuring 1.08 Hectares comprised in S.No.729/1 and 2 by forming a layout, which was approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Vellore, under Layout No.70/83 and as per the said approved layout, the property set apart for common purpose is about 1637.82 sq.mtrs (15.08% of the layout area) to the utility of the public as road and park. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner having purchased the said property, he shall surrender and execute conveying the portion, earmarked for park, to the local authority for maintenance. 4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that even prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the vendors of the petitioner have surrendered the roads and the portion set apart for common utility to the respondent and the respondent is in possession and administration of the property. Therefore the petitioner's claim that he is enjoying the property is untenable. Respondent is in physical possession and administration of the property from 1983 even though the vendors have not executed the gift deed in favour of the respondent. The respondent has developed the property as park and is maintaining the same by passing Resolution No.7 in the Panchayat Board meeting held on 30.10.2006. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat also accorded sanction on 30.11.2006 by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3706/2006/P1. Thereafter a tender was called for to form a park and work order was issued to M/s.Royal Founders Equipment Limited, Coimbatore on 29.12.2006 and the work was also completed and the park is now being utilised by the public. It is further stated that several children play equipments were erected and being effectively put in use. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the contention of the petitioner that his vendors have obtained layout approval and the said scheme was abandoned and not acted upon is denied as false. The petitioner's vendors have in effect sold most of the plots developed in the above said scheme even before the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, which is also reflected in the encumbrance certificate. It is further stated that the petitioner can proceed against the vendors if he has any grievance and not against the respondent. The vendors of the petitioner having surrendered possession to the Town Panchayat, even before the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, petitioner has no right against the respondent and prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being the owner of the property as per the sale deed, the respondent cannot interfere with his possession and enjoyment. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being the owner of the property as per the sale deed, the respondent cannot interfere with his possession and enjoyment. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1994 TLNJ 1 (Dr.R.Govindasamy v. The Comissioner, Virudhachalam Municipality, Virudhachalam) and the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 (Pt.Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi) and (2007) AIR SCW 5870 (M.Naga Venkata Lakshmi v. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation). 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is raising disputed questions of fact in this writ petition and when possession itself is with the respondent, the writ petition filed for forbearing the respondent from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 42.5 cents in S.No.729/2 Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk is not maintainable. The learned counsel also submitted that even before the petitioner purchased the property, petitioner's vendors surrendered possession to the Panchayat, which was also developed as children's park and the park is now used by the general public and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, that too in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent. 9. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the property to an extent of 42.5 cents from his vendors and the petitioner's vendors abandoned the layout approval and the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005. Petitioner has admitted in the affidavit that the petitioner's vendors purchased the property on 11.11.1981 and the Deputy Director Town and Country Planning granted layout approval in Permission No.70/83 for forming the layout. In the sale deed relied on by the petitioner it is mentioned that the property is approved by the Deputy Director of Town and country Planning, Vellore vide approval No.70/83. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the vendors have abandoned approval granted for layout and sold the disputed land for his use, which is stoutly disputed by the respondent, cannot be decided in this writ petition. 10. Further, the possession of the petitioner even on the date of purchase is disputed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the vendors have abandoned approval granted for layout and sold the disputed land for his use, which is stoutly disputed by the respondent, cannot be decided in this writ petition. 10. Further, the possession of the petitioner even on the date of purchase is disputed. According to the respondent, vendors of the petitioner gave possession to the respondent and the said area is now utilised as park, which was developed by calling for tender and work order was issued on 29.12.2006 to M/s.Royal Founders Equipment Limited, Coimbatore, who also completed the work and the park is put in public use. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 20.3.2007. The said facts are not denied by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit and the said fact can only be disproved before the competent Civil Court by adducing evidence. The interim injunction sought for in this writ petition was also not granted in favour of the petitioner and the said injunction petition itself was dismissed on 1.10.2010. Thus, no case is made out by the petitioner to grant any relief in his favour in this writ petition, particularly when the facts are in dispute. 11. The Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram) held that the title disputes between the parties cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities and parties must necessarily go before the competent Court. The said proposition viz., disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ petition is well settled. 12. 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. (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.Panda case ( (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 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. 13. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1994 TLNJ 1 (Dr.R.Govindasamy v. The Commissioner, Virudhachalam Municipality, Virudhachalam) is factually distinguishable, where the order passed by the principal authority to remove the obstruction was under challenge. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 (Pt.Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi) was rendered on the basis of the findings given by the Civil Court. In the said judgment, nowhere it is stated that the relief sought for in this writ petition can be entertained in the writ petition. The decision in (2007) AIR SCW 5870 (M.Naga Venkata Lakshmi v. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation) was rendered on the basis of purchase made, where the order rejecting approval was under challenge. 14. Here in this case, admittedly petitioner's vendors got approved layout and according to the respondent it was acted upon and it is the contention of the petitioner that it was not acted upon and the common area is now purchased by the petitioner. 14. Here in this case, admittedly petitioner's vendors got approved layout and according to the respondent it was acted upon and it is the contention of the petitioner that it was not acted upon and the common area is now purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner is claiming that he is in possession and the respondent is claiming that the petitioner is not in possession and the land is used by the general pubic as a park. All these facts are to be established only before the competent civil court. The writ petition filed like a suit for injunction is not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate his claim if any before the competent Civil Court, if so advised.