JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Sharan, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AAG-12 for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.6 through video conference. 2. The present Intra-Court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9300 of 2020. 3. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in a narrow compass, are that vide judgment of the learned Court below in Title Suit No.1540 of 2006, 11 decimals of land in question was recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” has been held to belong to the appellant and, accordingly, his name was entered in the khatiyan in place of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” on 13.07.2013 but the appellant is not in possession of the entire 11 decimals of land. According to the appellant, some part of his land has been encroached by the authorities who are constructing Panchayat Bhawan at instance of the local Mukhiya, who is respondent no.6 herein. It is further case of the appellant that his land has been measured thrice with the intention to defeat his genuine claim. There is a road adjacent to the plot/land in question which has been assumed by the authorities to be part of 11 decimals of the land, which the petitioner has bought and petitioner has nothing to do with the road and his 11 decimals was not forming part of the road, as the road has a separate Plot Number, bearing Plot No.3614, whereas the plot claimed by the appellant is Plot No.3621. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed in Title Suit No.1540 of 2006 by the learned Court below, 11 decimals of land in question was recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” and, accordingly, the name of the appellant was entered in the khatiyan in place of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” on 13.07.2013. The appellant is in possession of the entire 11 decimals as part of his land, which has been encroached by the respondent authorities, who are constructing Panchayat Bhawan at the instance of local Mukhiya. He further submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to demarcate his entire 11 decimals of land which is also in terms of the judgment in his favour in the Title Suit. 5. He further submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to demarcate his entire 11 decimals of land which is also in terms of the judgment in his favour in the Title Suit. 5. On the other hand, learned AAG-12 appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that first of all the judgment of the learned Court below is ex parte as it was uncontested. He further submits that the road which is existing for the last 80-85 years was repaired in the year 2002-03 and at that time there was no objection from any party much less the appellant. The appellant was not in possession of 11 decimals of land, in fact, he was occupying only 8.75 decimals, whereas 2.25 decimals of land claimed by the appellant was part of the road just adjacent to the plot. Thus, he submits that even if it is assumed that the ownership of the land is with the appellant, but once a road which is a public utility is in place for the last 80-85 years, it cannot be said that the State authorities have encroached upon the land of the appellant. He has also informed that an appeal has been preferred against the ex parte judgment passed in favour of the appellant. 6. In the writ proceedings before this Court, both the parties have filed their respective counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinder, which all are on record and I have perused the same. The Circle Officer, Patori, Samastipur in paragraph-13 of his counter affidavit has stated that the name of the appellant has been entered in record of right with respect to only 11 decimal of land, bearing Khata No.2643, Plot No.3621 and the rest land of the same plot remains public land (Gair Mazarua) vested in State Government. Further in paragraph-14, he has stated that the Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed on public land and no part of petitioner’s land is disturbed. In spite of the fact that the land has been measured thrice, the petitioner is not satisfied with the measurement. In paragraph-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5, it is stated that appellant has been given 11 decimal of land in north west side of Khata No.2643, Plot No.3621, which is clearly stated in khatiyan record. In paragraph-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5, it is stated that appellant has been given 11 decimal of land in north west side of Khata No.2643, Plot No.3621, which is clearly stated in khatiyan record. But the appellant stopped the measurement on 05.02.2021 on the ground that 11 decimals of land be measured from east side of Plot No.3621, which is not permissible. In paragraph-11, it is stated that the appellant has neither obeyed the direction of this Court nor has cooperated in the measurement exercise so that his land be demarcated. It is also stated in paragraph-12 that Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed on Gair Mazarua land and no part of appellant’s land is being disturbed. 7. Having heard the parties and perused the record, it appears that the appellant has been given 11 decimals of land in north west side of Khata No.2643, Plot No.3621, which is clearly stated in the order dated 30.12.2010 passed in Title Suit No.1540 of 2006 and also khatiyan record. It is not in dispute that the road in question is in existence for the last 80-85 years and the brick soling of the road was done in the year 2002-03 and PCC road was constructed in the year 2007-08. Thus, at the time of obtaining order dated 30.12.2010 passed in Title Suit No.1540/2006, the appellant was very much aware of the existence of the road, still he had chosen to get 11 decimals of land in north west side of Khata No.2643, Plot No.3621. It is also not in dispute that he has never objected to the construction of the road or has bothered to get the correction made in the order dated 30.12.2010 or entry in the khatiyan. In the third supplementary affidavit filed before the Writ Court, the appellant, apart from the other facts, has stated that 11 decimals of his land be measured excluding “road, drain (Naala) and electric transformer taking some parts of eastern side of Plot No.3621 that is vacant. 8. Having considered the matter, in my considered opinion, the facts giving rise to the writ petition as well as this appeal are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in a summary proceeding as it requires adducing evidence after examining witnesses. 8. Having considered the matter, in my considered opinion, the facts giving rise to the writ petition as well as this appeal are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in a summary proceeding as it requires adducing evidence after examining witnesses. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the parties have to get the matter resolved before the Court below either by the petitioner by filing fresh Title Suit seeking removal of the so-called encroachment or in the alternative, in the appeal filed by the State in which all such issues can be raised. In my view, a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate forum to seek relief, if such relief is based on disputed questions of fact of a complex nature, which may require oral evidence to be taken, it would not be appropriate to determine the issue in the writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgment has also held so. Some of which are in the case of The Union of India and Ors. vs. Ghaus Mohammad, since reported in AIR 1961 SC 1526 , DLF Housing Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. since reported in AIR 1976 SC 386 and State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh and Ors. since reported in 1993 suppl (1) SCC 306. 9. This Court would also not like to enter into adjudication of disputes relating to title, as it is of the opinion that a proceeding under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate proceeding for adjudication of dispute relating to title. 10. In the result, this appeal merits no consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. Vikash Jain, J. - I agree.