ORDER 1. These writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 17.7.2012. 2. The issues raised in all these four writ petitions are more or less identical, i.e., the petitioners were aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent State Government made in G.O.ms.No.222, Revenue Department, dated 6.7.2009. By the aforesaid order, the State Government had permitted transfer of lands to an extent of 0.11.0 hectares each for the construction of Assam Bhawan, Tripuram Bhawan, Orissa Bhawan and West Bengal Bhawan. It was stated in the said order that the District Collector, Kancheepuram by his communication, dated 11.2.2009 informed the Government that the lands to an extent of 1.02.0 hectares and an extent of 0.09.0 hectare in S.Nos.24 and 26 of Pallikaranai village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District classified as wet land was inspected by the District Revenue Officer. The land was surrounded by 8 to 10 feet of water, grasses and water plants. It is situated near Tambaram Velacherry road adjacent to the residential area. The lands are eligible for construction only if the ground level is increased by gravel. There are no historical monuments, burial ground and temple and the said land was not registered under the Prohibitory Order Book. A-1 notice was also issued. There was no objection and no encroachment and no sub division was also made in the land. The Collector also informed that the land can be transferred at the rate of Rs.900/- square feet as per the market value. 3. Subsequent to the communication sent by the District Collector, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration by a further communication, dated 20.3.2009 stated that the Chennai Collector had already sent a proposal to the Government for construction of Assam Bhawan at an extent of 12000 sq.ft in S.No.1, Adyar village, Chennai as classified as Kings Institute near Guindy and the Government had requested to send an alternate proposal of land abutting the main road reserved for CONCERT in Pallikaranai village, Tambaram Taluk. Therefore, the Collector had sent a proposal for transfer of the land. He had further stated that the proposal was examined. But the Collector did not mention any details regarding the access to the main road. The survey authority had cleared that a pathway was available amidst S.No.25 which has been requested by the Highways Department for extension of the road. He had further stated that the proposal was examined. But the Collector did not mention any details regarding the access to the main road. The survey authority had cleared that a pathway was available amidst S.No.25 which has been requested by the Highways Department for extension of the road. Therefore, there was no need for an access pathway separately. The Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Land Administration had recommended that the land to an extent of 0.11.0 hectares each in S.Nos.24 and 26 of Pallikaranai village may be transferred to construct Assam Bhawan, Orissa Bhawan, Tripura Bhawan and West Bengal Bhawan under Revenue Standing Order No.23 by collecting single market value. It was also stated that a condition may be imposed that the requisitioning department should not acquire any other land other then the land which was transferred. He had also recommended to issue an order that the remaining part of the land in S.Nos.24 and 26 be entered the extent in the Prohibitory Order Book for reserving to the purpose of the Government offices and residential quarters of the revenue department. It was on examining these two communications, the State Government had accepted the recommendation of the two officials and transferred the land for construction of Bhawans for various State Governments as noted above at the rate of Rs.900/- per square feet and that the land cost valued at Rs.1,06,61,477/- each. It was further directed that the requisitioning body should pay the sub division charges and stone value charges and they should obey all conditions imposed by the Government. The land so transferred should be utilized for the purpose for which it was transferred. In case if the land was not utilized, they should surrender the land. 4. W.P.No.26560 of 2011 was filed by five petitioners led by one P. Mohanakrishnan, claiming that the official respondents should be restrained from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprising in S.No.24 measuring 2.52 acres situated in Pallikarani village, Sholinganallur Taluk except by due process of law. That writ petition when it came up for admission on 18.11.2011, this court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. On 15.12.2011, an order of status quo for a period of two weeks was granted. On notice, on behalf of the Tahsildar, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (December, 2011) was filed. That writ petition when it came up for admission on 18.11.2011, this court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. On 15.12.2011, an order of status quo for a period of two weeks was granted. On notice, on behalf of the Tahsildar, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (December, 2011) was filed. In the counter affidavit, it was asserted that the land in S.No.24 belonged to the State Government. The petitioners' contention that an assignment was given in favour of the petitioners' mother was denied and no such order was passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram. Even the document bearing No.6476/2007, dated 23.8.2007 regarding partition of the land among the family members was also denied on the ground that it was a poramboke land belonged to the Government. The petitioners' mother got an ex parte decree against the Government in O.S.No.34/1997, dated 14.09.2001. The Government had taken steps to reopen the suit and the suit was dismissed on 1.7.2011. The land was allotted to the BHEL and two State Governments of Tirpura and Assam respectively. The petitioners have no right to apply for sub division of land. The land allotted to Assam Government was handed over to them on 19.2.2010 itself. The petitioners' prayer was based on lies and that the documents relied on were forged. 5. It is at this stage, the same petitioners have filed W.P.No.14507 of 2012 challenging the order of the State Government. That writ petition when it came up for admission on 7.6.2012, notice was ordered. This court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. Even before notice was ordered in the said writ petition, two other writ petitions came to be filed. 6. In W.P.No.29391 of 2011, the petitioner was Thenindhiya Amaipusara Udal Uzhaippu Tholilalargal Sangam, represented by its General Secretary. They have filed the writ petition challenging the very same order. In that writ petition, only notice of motion was ordered. A counter affidavit, dated 22.03.2012 was filed by the Tahsildar, Tambaram. 7. The other writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.12064 of 2012 was filed by one P.Shanmugam, claiming to be the brother of one S.Padma, who is the owner of the land, in S.No.26 to an extent of 2.23 acres. That writ petition was admitted on 27.04.2012. In all these writ petitions, counter affidavits have been filed independently. 7. The other writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.12064 of 2012 was filed by one P.Shanmugam, claiming to be the brother of one S.Padma, who is the owner of the land, in S.No.26 to an extent of 2.23 acres. That writ petition was admitted on 27.04.2012. In all these writ petitions, counter affidavits have been filed independently. In W.P.No.14507 of 2012, a reply affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioners. 8. In W.P.No.14507 of 2012, the case of the petitioners were as follows: The petitioners were the sons of one Pachaiappan. It is claimed that the petitioners' mother Maragadammal was granted a temporary permission for cultivating the land in S.No.24, Pallikaranai village to an extent of 2.52 acres, which was classified as Nanjai Tharisu. The permission was granted on 21.10.1963 by the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu. Subsequent to the settlement proceedings, their mother applied for the grant of patta in respect of the property on 17.02.1970. After due enquiry by the authorities and after getting an opinion of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, the Sub Collector, Saidapet by her proceedings dated 24.04.1984 had granted patta in her favour. The computer patta as well as chitta were also issued in the name of their mother. 'A' Register of the Pallikaranai village also reflected the name of their mother as the owner of the land. Their father died on 01.10.1989. Even after his death, the petitioners' mother continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property till her death on 27.02.1995. Thereafter, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, a partition deed dated 23.8.2007 was registered in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Saidapet by dividing the properties among the brothers. Even during the life time of their mother, she filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 1993 before the District Munsif, Tambaram to restrain the District Collector, Kanheepuram and the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur from interfering with the property. The suit was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and renumbered as O.S.No.34 of 1997. In the meantime, their mother died on 27.02.1995. The Power Agent of the petitioners' mother, by name G.Ramasamy did not bring it to the notice of the court. The suit was decreed on 14.09.2001. The suit was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and renumbered as O.S.No.34 of 1997. In the meantime, their mother died on 27.02.1995. The Power Agent of the petitioners' mother, by name G.Ramasamy did not bring it to the notice of the court. The suit was decreed on 14.09.2001. They also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26560 of 2011 to forbear the respondents from interfering with the possession and an order of status quo was granted for a period of two weeks. The third respondent, State of Assam filed a caveat in the District Munsif, Alandur. It is at this juncture, the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.222, Revenue, dated 6.7.2009 was passed in favour of various States for constructing their Bhawans in the land in question. Therefore, it was stated that the impugned order was illegal and contrary to the revenue records. 9. In the counter affidavit, these facts were disputed. It was stated that 2.23 hectares were classified as wet assessed waste in the revenue accounts of Pallikaranai village, Sholinganallur Taluk, which were coming under the category of poramboke land. The claim that assessment was given by the Sub Collector was denied. It was stated that the Sub Collector was not competent to issue such an order as the lands were situated in the belt area, where there is a Government order prohibiting assignment of lands by the subordinate authorities in respect of the lands which were coming within the belt area (Pallikaranai village also comes within the belt area). The Government alone is competent to grant patta. The lands referred are wet assessed waste lands coming under poramboke category and most of the part of the year, it will be submerged in water due to shallow nature. When the authorities had inspected the land, there was no encroachment. The assignment order as well as the settlement deed were all fabricated. 10. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, once again the same contentions were raised. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, it was stated that the suit in O.S.No.34 of 1997 was reopened and it was dismissed on 1.7.2011. 11. In W.P.No.29391 of 2011, the case of the association was that they asked for assignment of lands in S.Nos.24 and 25 by granting free patta. They filed a writ petition being W.P.No.1754 of 2009. 11. In W.P.No.29391 of 2011, the case of the association was that they asked for assignment of lands in S.Nos.24 and 25 by granting free patta. They filed a writ petition being W.P.No.1754 of 2009. In that writ petition, this court by an order dated 12.03.2009 had directed the respondents to consider their representation. It was their claim that the survey numbers were registered as Nanjai Tharisu. But since their representation was not considered, they filed a contempt petition in C.P.No.1079 of 2010. In the meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, by communication, dated 18.11.2010 had rejected their request for granting any assignment as there are no alternative lands available for being assigned in favour of the association and that the lands were already assigned in favour of the Assam Bhawan and BHEL. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 12. In response to the writ petition, in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Tambaram, it was stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 as follows: 7. The land available in SF.No.25 was utilized as Tambaram -Velachery road. Further the members of the Petitioner's Association had never made any encroachment in the above said land. The lands were also waterlogged....." "6. The details of present status lands in SF.No.24, 25 and 26 of Pallikaranai Village are as follows : 13. In W.P.No.12064 of 2012, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the Government order assigning the land in favour of various State Government and for a direction to transfer the revenue records in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the settlement deed dated 24.01.2008. Even in this case, the petitioner claimed that his sister Padma was claiming patta in respect of the land even during the year 1970. An enquiry was conducted and the District Collector, Chengalpattu by proceedings dated 14.2.1982 had directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai to conduct an enquiry and report to the Sub Collector, Saidapet. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai after due enquiry found that the classification as "Nanjai Tharisu" was not correct and had recommended for reclassification of the land as Nanjai and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner's sister. Consequently, the Sub collector, Saidapet had granted patta on 20.6.1984 in S.No.26. Thereafter, she had registered the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and that he has been enjoying the property. Consequently, the Sub collector, Saidapet had granted patta on 20.6.1984 in S.No.26. Thereafter, she had registered the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and that he has been enjoying the property. All of a sudden, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence they have come forward to challenge the same. 14. In the counter affidavit filed, these allegations were denied. It was stated that the documents relied on by the petitioner were all forged. 15. In the light of these rival pleadings, this court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the original file relating to G.O.Ms.No.222, dated 6.7.2009. It is found from the file that the order was preceded by the spot inspection by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram along with the Tahsildar, Tambaram, Firka Surveyor, Zonal Depity Tahsildar, Tambaram, Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer. This court perused the report of the joint inspection. It was stated in the report that the land in S.Nos.24 and 26 were classified as Nanjai Tharisu. After sub division, it has been allotted to various States for setting up their State Bhawans. It also found that there are no heritage or burial ground or cremation ground in the said place. But it is a catchment area. It is on the Western side of the road leading from Tambaram to Velacherry. The land was submerged with 6 feet water column and grass and water hyacinth were grown. Though there are nearby habitations, no other land available except the land which was submerged in water. Hence they decided to reclassify the land. A notice was published in the village calling for objections. No objections were received. Therefore, it can be seen from the said report that there is no cultivation as claimed by them. It is in this context, the stand of the respondents was that the documents in possession of the petitioners were forged documents and that their present claim that they are in possession is also disputed in terms of the spot inspection report. 16. However, Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that since they are having valid documents including assignment by the Sub Collector, the present Government Order cannot be relied upon. 17. In the light of the rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the petitioners' case can be countenanced by this court. 18. 16. However, Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that since they are having valid documents including assignment by the Sub Collector, the present Government Order cannot be relied upon. 17. In the light of the rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the petitioners' case can be countenanced by this court. 18. Since the petitioners have claimed their title over the said property and their right is denied by the respondent State, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. It must be noted that in case of disputed question of fact, the entertainment of the writ petition under Article 226 cannot be desirable. In such circumstances, the petitioners are having remedy by way of approaching the civil forum, which has got power to record evidence and also to summon the documents. This court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. 19. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhashree Das v. State of Orissa reported in (2012) 9 SCC 729 , wherein in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "7. Having given due consideration to the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the claim of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Orissa, could not have been determined on the basis of disputed facts. In a case where a petitioner/appellant wishes to press his/her claim before a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the claim raised by such a petitioner/appellant must be determined on the basis of the factual position acknowledged by the respondent. This is so because a High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would ordinarily not adjudicate a matter, where the foundational facts are disputed. ........" 20. Further the Supreme Court in M/s. Real Estate Agencies Vs. Government of Goa and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5203 in paragraph 9 had observed as follows: "9. However, there is no universal rule or principle of law which debars the Writ Court from entertaining adjudications involving disputed questions of fact. ........" 20. Further the Supreme Court in M/s. Real Estate Agencies Vs. Government of Goa and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5203 in paragraph 9 had observed as follows: "9. However, there is no universal rule or principle of law which debars the Writ Court from entertaining adjudications involving disputed questions of fact. In fact, in the realm of legal theory, no question or issue would be beyond the adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 226, even if such adjudication would require taking of oral evidence. However, as a matter of prudence, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, normally would not entertain a dispute which would require it to adjudicate contested questions and conflicting claims of the parties to determine the correct facts for due application of the law......" 21. Further, the claim in W.P.No.29391 of 2011 seeking for assignment of land cannot be permitted. Hence W.P.No.29391 of 2011 will stand dismissed. In respect of W.P.No.26560 of 2011, the same petitioners have also filed W.P.No.14507 of 2012 for a comprehensive relief. Therefore, W.P.No.26560 of 2011 will stand dismissed. Insofar as W.P.No.12064 and 14507 of 2012 is concerned, the remedy open to the petitioner is to move an appropriate civil court. The writ petitions are not maintainable. Hence both writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, this will not prevent the petitioners in those two writ petitions to move an appropriate civil court. In case, if they approach the civil court, they can also claim waiver of the notice under Section 80 of CPC in view of the pendency of the writ petitions before this court. 22. With these observations, all writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.