JUDGMENT : 1. Whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India damages/compensation for alleged demolition of certain constructions belonging to the petitioner done by the State or any State instrumentality can be awarded in the facts of this case, is the issue, which engages our attention in this petition. 2. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sridhar Awasthi, for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the Union of India/Railways and learned counsel representing the State-respondents and perused the records available before us on this writ petition. 3. The petition has been filed with the allegation that certain constructions existing on khasra plot no.1689 (New No.163) situate in Tehsil-Rudauli, District-Ayodhya were demolished by the Railways authorities on 27.09.2019 without giving any show cause notice or prior information to the petitioner, that too, in his absence. It has been argued by the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Sudeep Seth representing the petitioner that on account of illegal demolition undertaken by the respondents, the petitioner has been deprived of his right of property to use the same in derogation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further submission is that the petitioner was never issued any notice prior to demolition; neither any proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were undertaken, nor have the respondents followed the provisions of Railways Act, 1989 and the Indian Railways Court for Engineering Department. It has, thus, been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by resorting to illegal demolition existing on khasra plot no.1689 (New No.163) the respondents have since breached Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India and such action is also in defiance of the constitutional right of the petitioner and enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the same is completely arbitrary, hence they are liable to be saddled with compensation and damages to be paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.50 lakh. 4. 4. The facts, which have been narrated in the writ petition, are that khasra plot nos.1689 and 1688 (New Nos.163 and 164 respectively) have been inherited by the petitioner from his ancestor where he has made certain constructions and have been earning rent by leasing out the building to various tenants which is his only source of livelihood and by undertaking demolition respondents have thus unlawfully deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It has, thus, been argued that since it is a case where constitutional rights of the petitioner have been infringed by the respondents by demolishing the construction belonging to him, hence even under public-law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents can be held liable to pay compensation/damages. 5. The petition, however, has been opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondents, who have submitted that the writ petition is highly misconceived for the reason that even if the assertions made by the petitioner are assumed to be correct, it will not be possible for this Court to award damages/compensation to the petitioner in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submission on behalf of the respondents, thus, is that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at its threshold. 6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the respective parties. 7. The first and foremost question, which falls for determination of this Court in these proceedings, is as to whether for the prayers made in the writ petition this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction, which necessarily is discretionary, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, we find that there are two legal impediments before the petitioner which are to be sailed across by him if this petition is to succeed. The first such impediment is that any claim for damages/compensation for any damage caused to the property in question will necessarily require the Court to investigate various disputed facts, which, in our opinion, will not be permissible for the simple reason that such determination requires detailed examination of evidence which can better be made in a civil suit, which may be tried before a court of competent civil jurisdiction. 8. 8. The second legal impediment, which comes in the way of the petitioner seeking the relief as prayed for in this petition is that damages/compensation can be awarded by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in case some infringement of public-law right is involved and found. For mere infringement of private-law right, public-law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available. 9. No doubt, this Court exercises very wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of issuing writs, however, there are well recognized limitations which the Court has to be conscious of while it is called upon to exercise its writ jurisdiction. One of the such limitations, which is rather self imposed limitation/restriction which needs to be observed by this Court while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that it should not enter into an issue which for its determination requires the parties to adduce evidence. The disputed question of facts, thus, are not permissible to be delved into by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that the writ petitions are generally decided on the basis of uncontroverted facts to be deduced from the affidavits which the parties to a dispute are called upon to file. It is well settled that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available for deciding disputes for which a remedy under general civil law is available to a party approaching the Court. 10. If we consider the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition on the aforesaid well recognized principles evolved for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quo the facts pleaded in the writ petition, what we find is that determination of the issue as to whether alleged demolition of the building in question was done by the respondents in breach of law or not will require adjudication of factual aspects. The petitioner has though made mention in the writ petition of two khasra plot numbers, namely, khasra plot no.1689 (New No.163) and khasra plot no.1688 (New No.164), however, it has been stated that he renovated the building and raised constructions on khasra plot no.1689 (New No.163) and leased them out to various tenants, however, there appears to be some dispute in relation to area of these two khasra plot numbers. In the writ petition at one place, it has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner's predecessor in interest got the land through Ezzaztnama executed by the erstwhile Zamindar in respect of 6 Biswa area of khasra plot no.1689 and also in respect of 6 Biswas out of total area of 12 Biswas of khasra plot no.1688, however, at another place, it has been stated by the petitioner that area of 6 Biswa of khasra plot no.1689 has been recorded in the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner but area of khasra plot no.1688 which was 12 Biswas had been mistakenly recorded as 6 Biswas. It has also been stated in para 17 of the writ petition that in khasra plot no.1688 names of grand father and father of the petitioner had not been recorded in the revenue records after consolidation proceedings were held in the year 1969. Thus, as per the averments made by the petitioner himself so far as khasra plot no.1688 (new no.164) is concerned initially an are of 6 Biswa was given to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner through Ezzaztnama by the Zamindar, however the said land was not recorded in the revenue records in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on completion of the consolidation proceedings held in the year 1969. 11. It is also to be noted that as per the averments made in the writ petition khasra plot nos.1689 and 1688 are contiguous to each other and further, various development projects have been carried out in past in the vicinity of khasra plot no.1689 including widening of sub railway track and road adjacent to the railway line in question. We may also note that as per the averments made by the petitioner himself, on enquiry from the opposite parties he was told that his building was constructed on railway land. We may also note that as per the averments made by the petitioner himself, on enquiry from the opposite parties he was told that his building was constructed on railway land. Thus, determination of the issue as to where exactly the building in question is situated whether on the land belonging to the petitioner or on the railway land, will necessary require leading of the evidence by both the parties which will not be permissible in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the mentioned facts it is more than clear that the petitioner by instituting these proceedings calls upon us to enter into disputed questions of fact, investigation of which will necessarily involve leading evidence. Accordingly, on this count alone, we are unable to persuade ourselves to entertain this writ petition. It also appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his brother-respondent no.7-Prakash Chandra Gupta in respect of the property as has been admitted in the writ petition itself and that both these persons are said to be co-owners of the property in question. 12. Shri Seth, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and some High Courts to impress upon the Court that since it is a case of infringement of 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India as such even in public-law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court can award damages/compensation. The first judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Chairman, Railway Board and others vs. Chandrima Das and others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465 . The first judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Chairman, Railway Board and others vs. Chandrima Das and others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465 . So far as the said case is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that public-law remedies have to be extended to the realm of tort and the Court can award compensation to a person who suffers personal injuries amounting to tortious act at the hands of the officers of the Government, however, Chandrima Das (supra) was a case where damages were claimed by instituting the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where violation of any ordinary right of a person was not involved but it was found a case of violation of fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the compensation was claimed for the victim who was gang-raped by many including employees of the Railways in a room at Yatri Niwas at a Railway Station. In the facts of the said case, it was held that damages/compensation can be awarded against State or State instrumentalies in case violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is established. There can not be any quarrel so far as the law laid down in the case of Chandrima Das (supra) is concerned, where relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 667 , it was held that the High Court has jurisdiction not only to grant relief to enforce fundamental rights but also for 'any other purpose' which would include enforcement of public duties by public bodies. It has further been held that essentially under public law, it is the dispute between the citizen or a group of citizens on the one hand and the State or other public bodies on the other, which is resolved. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) further held that judicial review of every executive or administrative action of the State or other statutory or public bodies is permissible. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) further held that judicial review of every executive or administrative action of the State or other statutory or public bodies is permissible. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases relating to custodial death or medical negligence has observed that compensation under public law domain may be awarded but for such exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the party claiming damages or compensation has to establish violation of fundamental rights. 14. No doubt, the allegations in this petition is against the railways authorities, however, the petitioner has pleaded violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by stating that he had tenanted the building in question and he was earning rent. However, what Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees right to practice any profession or carry out any occupation or trade or any business. There is no doubt that by renting the property its owner may gain its livelihood, however, the same in itself cannot, in our opinion, amount to any profession or occupation or trade or business. In this view, our opinion is that at the most, if the facts pleaded by the petitioner are proved, the petitioner may have some cause of action for breach of property rights alone. Thus, for breach of property rights, in our opinion, damages or compensation, if any, can be awarded by a court of competent civil jurisdiction on a suit to be instituted for the said purpose and not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which primarily operates in public-law realm. 15. Shri Seth, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon yet another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.S.E.B. and others vs. Ram Nath and others, reported in (2004) SCC 793. 16. We are afraid, the said judgment does not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that it was a case of death of a child where compensation was awarded, however, the said judgment also does not discuss the scope of public-law remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment in the case of State of Mizoram and others vs. Hrangdawla and another, reported in (2011) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 444. 17. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment in the case of State of Mizoram and others vs. Hrangdawla and another, reported in (2011) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 444. In the said case it has been held that public-law remedy serves a different purpose than private law remedy. It has also been held that public-law remedy for rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is available to assure that citizens of this country to live under a legal system where their rights and interest are protected. So far as the legal principle enunciated in the said case of State of Mizoram and others (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute, however, for invoking public-law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief of damages or compensation, the person approaching this Court has to establish infringement of any of the fundamental rights including those guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. Shri Seth then relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of State of Kerala and others vs. Safia, reported in (2021) SCC Online Ker 3283. In the aforesaid case of State of Kerala (supra) a detailed discussion has been made by High Court of Kerala about the public-law remedy vis-a-vis award of compensation/damages. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the said case came to the conclusion that the building in question was being used for residential purposes and that for widening of road, the Public Works Department there undertook certain demolitions which violated Article 19(1)(e) i.e. right to reside and live in the building peacefully. It further came to the conclusion that by undertaking such demolition of residential building right to privacy as recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 has also been violated. 19. In the instant case, the building in question in respect of which demolition by the petitioner has been alleged in this petition, as per the own showing of the petitioner, was rented to Bharat Sevak Samaj, Weight and Measurement Office, U.P. Agro Ltd., Consolidation Office, Food Corporation of India and some Liquor Shops. Thus, it was not being used for residential purposes. Thus, it was not being used for residential purposes. Further as already observed above, the matter at hand involves determination of disputed questions of facts which does not appear to us to be possible without the parties leading the evidence. 20. In the aforesaid view, we are of the opinion that judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court is of no avail to the petitioner. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. 22. However, notwithstanding dismissal of this writ petition, it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy, which may be available to him under law, including the remedy of instituting appropriate suit before the court of competent civil jurisdiction. 23. Costs made easy.