JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original petitioner who preferred W.P.(C) No. 4436 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 21st October, 1914 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant, it appears W.P.(C) No. 4436 of 2013 was preferred with following prayers: "1. That in the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: (A) For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent nos. 5 and 6 to send to this Hon'ble Court all the records immediately and forthwith appertaining to the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Railway line to and fro from Maithan Power Limited by acquisition of land for which notification had been issued on 18.02.2008, wherein khata No. 41, plot nos. 5 and 6 to send to this Hon'ble Court all the records immediately and forthwith appertaining to the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Railway line to and fro from Maithan Power Limited by acquisition of land for which notification had been issued on 18.02.2008, wherein khata No. 41, plot nos. 354 and 660 measuring an area 82 decimals and 60 decimals respectively, which although not mentioned in the notification dated 18.2.2008, but have been sought to be acquired by the respondents without making any payment of compensation or without granting any benefit in kind to its original owner and also denying the permission to the petitioner to sell/mortgage/gift the said land according to his choice and thereafter to restrain the respondents from taking over the possession of the said land or from doing any construction over the said land on the ground that it is the exclusive property of the petitioner and his family members to have complete right, title and interest over the said land without there being any dispute from any quarter of the right, title and interest over the said land; And (B) Thereafter be further pleased to direct the respondents to acquire the same, if necessary, in accordance with law after making payment of full compensation in cash and kind for which the petitioner may be entitled, in view of the fact that long area of land of the raiyats have already been acquired for the purpose of laying down the Railway line for transportation of coal and other materials of the Maithan Power Limited; (C) For a further direction upon the respondents to restrain the authorities of the Maithan Power Limited from making any construction over the land without same being acquired and handed over to them by the respondents-State and its authorities. And (D) For any other appropriate writ, order or direction that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that the property in question pertains to Plot No. 354- ad-measuring 2.13. acres, out of which 82 decimals is involved in the writ petition. Another property pertains to Plot No. 660 ad-measuring 33 decimals, out of which 16 decimals is involved in the writ petition. It further appears from the facts of the case that the property in question pertains to Plot No. 354- ad-measuring 2.13. acres, out of which 82 decimals is involved in the writ petition. Another property pertains to Plot No. 660 ad-measuring 33 decimals, out of which 16 decimals is involved in the writ petition. This land is situated at Khata No. 41, village Pakhtoria, District Dhanbad. 4. Looking to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State of Jharkhand in the writ petition, it appears that claim has been made by the respondent State that the lands in question basically belong to the Government and hence, when originally several plots were acquired by virtue of a Notification dated 18th February, 2008 under Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-3 to the memo of the writ petition) for a railway line to be laid down by Respondent No. 6, the lands in question, viz. Plot No. 354 and Plot No. 660 were neither incorporated in the Notification under Section 4 nor under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. It appears from the prayers made in the memo of the writ petition that ownership is claimed by this appellant, initially exclusive ownership and later on joint ownership, and looking to prayer at 1(B), it further appears that this appellants are not much interested in retaining the lands, rather it is prayed that the said lands may be acquired with a fresh notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act so that the appellant may get the benefit of price escalation and other benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 6. The Appellant has also placed on record several annexures stating the ownership and the possession upon the lands in question. Neither the ownership nor the possession of this appellant has been accepted by the Government of Jharkhand from the very beginning as it appears from the counter affidavits, especially Paragraph No. 10 and 11, filed by the State of Jharkhand in the writ petition. Paragraph No. 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 5 in W.P.(S) No. 4436 of 2013 read as under: "10. Paragraph No. 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 5 in W.P.(S) No. 4436 of 2013 read as under: "10. That with regard to the statements made in Para 13 and 14 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the order obtained from the Revenue Authority of Survey department under the provisions of C.N.T. Act regarding the illegal possession of one party or other, without disclosing all the true and correct facts, is of no avail to the petitioner and the same is not at all a document of title of the person shown in possession of any piece of land. 11. That with regard to the statements made in Para 15 to 18 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the document annexed by the petitioner vide Annexure-9 has never been issued by the Office, therefore fabrication and manipulation of the said documents by the petitioner cannot be ruled out." 7. Thus, it appears that the stand taken by the respondent State, even in the writ petition, is that ownership and possession of the land in question belongs to the Government and the documents presented by this appellant (original petitioner) are false, fabricated and manipulated. Several affidavits have been filed in the writ petition and Paragraph No.s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand read as under: "6. That a list of Gair Mazrua lands which was prepared shows that the lands in question are Gair Mazurwa lands. A photocopy of the relevant extracts of Gair Abad Panji Halka No. II of Anchal Nirsa is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-A to this affidavit. 7. That the lands in question are Government lands will also appear from the Khatiyan prepared during Cadastral Survey A Photocopy of the Khatiyan of Khata No. 41, Plot No. 660 and 354 of village Pakhtoria is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure- B to this affidavit. 8. That the petitioner has filed a certificate dated 15.10.2009 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition contending inter alia that the lands in question has been recorded in the name of Deo Chand Bhagat in the Jamabandi Column No. 7. 8. That the petitioner has filed a certificate dated 15.10.2009 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition contending inter alia that the lands in question has been recorded in the name of Deo Chand Bhagat in the Jamabandi Column No. 7. It is stated and submitted that the same is a forged and fabricated document which will appear from the issue and dispatch register in which there is no mention of any certificate granted on 15.10.09 A Photocopy of the issue and dispatch register of Nirsa Anchal is being field herewith and marked as Annexure-C to this affidavit. 9. That so far as Annexure-5 is concerned which is an order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad, is concerned it is not in relation to Plot No. 354 and Plot No. 360 of Khata No. 41 of village Pakthoria. 10. That so far as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is concerned which is alleged to be a Khatiyan of Plot No. 354 having a total area of 2.13 acres and Plot No. 660 having a total area of 33 decimals of Khata No. 41 of Mouza Patkhoria is concerned, it is stated that the same is a forged and fabricated document. 11. That so far as Annexure-2 is concerned which is allegedly an M Form in the name of Deo Chand Bhagat grandfather of the petitioner, it is stated that the same is also a forged document since the petitioners have themselves admitted that they were Raiyats of the land in question, therefore Form M or Form K is of no relevance so far as the petitioner is concerned since Form K is an application made by the outgoing proprietor or tenure holder of a Estate or tenure which has vested in the Estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for determination of fare and equitable or ground rent under Section 5,6 and 7 of the Act. It is further submitted that so far as Form M is concerned it relates to rent roll showing fare and equitable rent or ground rent under Section 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 12. It is further submitted that so far as Form M is concerned it relates to rent roll showing fare and equitable rent or ground rent under Section 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 12. That with regard to statements made in Para 9 and 10 of the writ petition and Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 it is stated that the lands of Khata No. 41 Plot No. 354 having a total area of 2.13 acres and Plot No. 660 having an area of 33 decimals is not mentioned in the notification dated 18.02.2008 since both the Plots are government lands and as such there is no requirement of acquisition of lands which has vested in the Government" (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the aforesaid stand of the Government and prayers made by the appellant (original petitioner) in the writ petition, it appears that there is a highly disputed question of fact relating to ownership and title of the property in question is involved, more particularly, when prayer at (B) says that this appellant is ready and willing to give the lands to Respondent No. 6 after fresh land acquisition proceedings are initiated. 9. Such highly disputed question of fact with respect to right, title and interest relating to the properties in question as well as possession thereof cannot be decided in the writ petition, especially when the allegations are to the effect that there are false and fabricated documents presented by this appellant. This Court will not exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the respondent State has emphatically alleged regarding documents being forged. Because to resolve such type of dispute, which involves forged and manipulated documents, unless cogent and convincing evidences are led, it will be extremely difficult to arrive at any conclusion. 10. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda reported in (1969) 3 SCC 769 in Paragraph No. 14 as under: "14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons." (Emphasis supplied) 11. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot reported in (1974) 2 SCC 706 in Para 10 as under: "10. It is not necessary for this case to express an opinion on the point as to whether the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 141 of the Code, to which reference has been made, makes it clear that the provisions of the Code in regard to suits shall be followed in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction as far as it can be made applicable. Section 141 of the Code, to which reference has been made, makes it clear that the provisions of the Code in regard to suits shall be followed in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction as far as it can be made applicable. The words "as far as it can be made applicable" make it clear that, in applying the various provisions of the Code to proceedings other than those of a suit, the court must take into account the nature of those proceedings and the relief sought. The object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. Power has consequently been vested in the High Courts to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any government, within the jurisdiction of the High Court, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. It is plain that if the procedure of a suit had also to be adhered to in the case of writ petitions, the entire purpose of having a quick and inexpensive remedy would be defeated. A writ petition under Article 226, it needs to be emphasised, is essentially different from a suit and it would be incorrect to assimilate and incorporate the procedure of a suit into the proceedings of a petition under Article 226. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right of relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is no doubt discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition (see Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality). When the petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition (see Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality). If, however, on consideration of the nature of the controversy, the High Court decides, as in the present case, that it should go into a disputed question of fact and the discretion exercised by the High Court appears to be sound and in conformity with judicial principles, this Court would not interfere in appeal with the order made by the High Court in this respect." (Emphasis supplied) 12. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal reported in (2003) 6 SCC 230 in Para 28 as under: "28. A writ petition is filed in public law remedy. The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute. Indisputably, a large number of private disputes between the parties and in particular the question as to whether any deed of transfer was effected in favour of M/s Writers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. as also whether a partition or a family settlement was arrived at or not, were pending adjudication before the civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition primarily revolved around the order of authentication of the declaration made by one of the respondents in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The writ petition, in the factual matrix involved in the matter, could have been held to be maintainable only for that purpose and no other." 13. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Assn. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 567 in Para 35 and 38 as under: "35. The writ petition, in the factual matrix involved in the matter, could have been held to be maintainable only for that purpose and no other." 13. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Assn. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 567 in Para 35 and 38 as under: "35. In a case of this nature, where serious disputed questions of fact were raised, in our opinion, it was not proper for the High Court to embark thereupon an exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court in its judgment relied upon a large number of decisions of this Court, inter alia, in Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle) ignoring the fact that all such disputes were adjudicated in an industrial adjudication. 38. It was, furthermore, reiterated that a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding." 14. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa reported in (2012) 12 SCC 170 in 16, 17 and 21 as under: "16. A reading of the order of the High Court would go to show that its refusal to interdict the developmental works undertaken or about to be undertaken is on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy i.e. a suit for injunction. The writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is fully empowered to interdict the State or its instrumentalities from embarking upon a course of action to the detriment of the rights of the citizens, though, in the exercise of jurisdiction in the domain of public law such a restraint order may not be issued against a private individual. This, of course, is not due to any inherent lack of jurisdiction but on the basis that the public law remedy should not be readily extended to settlement of private disputes between individuals. Even where such an order is sought against a public body the writ court may refuse to interfere, if in the process of determination disputed questions of fact or title would require to be adjudicated. 17. However, there is no universal rule or principle of law which debars the writ court from entertaining adjudications involving disputed questions of fact. Even where such an order is sought against a public body the writ court may refuse to interfere, if in the process of determination disputed questions of fact or title would require to be adjudicated. 17. 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 the contested questions and conflicting claims of the parties to determine the correct facts for due application of the law. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., the precise position of the law in this regard has been explained in paras 16, 17 and 19 of the judgment in the course of which the earlier views of this Court in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council has been referred to. 21. The High Court, in our considered view, ought not to have disposed of the writ petition at the stage and in the manner it had so done and, instead, ought to have satisfied itself that there was actually a serious dispute between the parties on the question of ownership or title. Only in that event, the High Court would have been justified to relegate the petitioner to the civil court to seek his remedies by way of a suit." (Emphasis supplied) 15. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Krishnanand v. Director of Consolidation reported in (2015) 1 SCC 553 in Paragraph 12 and 13 as under: "12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for re-appreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity. 13. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below, especially since the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor acted perversely. The High Court has nowhere stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances:" (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we are not inclined to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 4436 of 2013 filed by this appellant vide order dated 21st October, 1914. 16. Nonetheless, we, hereby, clarify that appellant/original petitioner is entitled to raise the dispute with respect to his right, title and interest before any competent Civil Court so far as properties which are involved in this writ petition are concerned. 17. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.