JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to issue a no-objection certificate to the petitioner to pay the basic land tax in respect of his properties, covered under Exhibits P1, P2, P3 and P4. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of properties owned and possessed by the petitioner as per Exhibit P1 assignment deed. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 4 and 5 to accept the basic land tax in respect of the properties of the petitioner covered under Exhibit P1 assignment deed, without insisting for a no-objection certificate from the forest officials.” 2. The basic facts discernible from the writ petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner in possession of five acres of landed property in Survey No. 1/Part of Vettilappara Village in Malappuram District; the petitioner has purchased the said properties by way of Ext.P1 sale-deed No. 4591/2003 of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Nilambur, dated 04.11.2013. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P2 Purchase Certificate No. 1001/1981 dated 30.04.1981 issued by the Land Tribunal, Nilambur, apparently in respect of the said property; that after purchase of the property, petitioner had paid the basic tax evident from Ext.P3 dated 11.11.2003 and the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 possession certificate dated 11.11.2003 also, by the Village Officer, Pullippadam Village. It is the prime contention projected by the petitioner that when the petitioner approached for payment of the revenue tax after 2003, it was informed that the land tax could not be paid as the forest officials have proposed to notify the properties of the petitioner as an ecologically fragile land under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act 2003’) and therefore, the land tax cannot be accepted. The case of the petitioner is that, later the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act regarding the properties notified under the ecologically fragile land in the Nilambur Forest Division. The case of the petitioner is that, later the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act regarding the properties notified under the ecologically fragile land in the Nilambur Forest Division. Accordingly, Ext.P5 information dated 08.04.2014 was given by the Public Information Officer listing out the properties declared as ecologically fragile land in the Nilambur North Forest Division and Ext.P6 map showing the properties declared as ecologically fragile land. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that it is very clear from the documents that the property belonging to the petitioner has not been declared as an ecologically fragile land by the authorities and thereupon, petitioner approached the Village Officer, Pullippadam to pay the land tax; however, it is informed that the land has to be verified. It is the further submission of the petitioner that on verification, it is found that the land belonging to the petitioner falls within the neighbouring village in the re-survey and the petitioner was directed to approach the Village Officer, Vettilappara Village, Malappuram District for the payment of land tax. According to the petitioner, on verification, the Village Officer, Vettilappara was satisfied that the land falls within the Vettilappara Village and therefore, the petitioner has necessarily to correct the original deed and also to pay land tax to the fifth respondent, Village Officer. However, when the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Ernad Taluk, Manjeri, Malappuram District - the fourth respondent, petitioner was informed that since the boundaries of the property in question is forest land or the unassigned rocky land or the ecologically fragile land ‘no objection certificate’ from the forest officials is required. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P7 communication issued by the Village Officer, Vettilappara dated 27.05.2014 pointing out the above aspect. It is in the above backdrop, the reliefs are sought for in the writ petition. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur - the first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner and basically contending that the property in question is a forest land surrounded by reserved forest and the property of the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner, is not a property belonging to the petitioner. In order to understand the exact facts and figures projected by the Divisional Forest Officer, I think it is only appropriate that the relevant paragraphs are extracted: “5. In order to understand the exact facts and figures projected by the Divisional Forest Officer, I think it is only appropriate that the relevant paragraphs are extracted: “5. It is submitted that Ext.P1 is the title deed of the property stated to be purchased by the petitioner in Pullippadam Village. Ext.P1 is dated 4.11.2003. For the last more than a decade, the petitioner could not locate the property covered by Ext.P1, in Pullippadam Village. Having failed to identify the land stated to be purchased by her in Pullippadam Village, the petitioner is aiming at a land under the control of the Forest Department, in Vettilappara Village. The attempt of the petitioner is not liable to be acceded to. The petitioner has no right, title or interest in the property presently claimed by her in Vettilappara Village. 6. It is submitted that the land presently claimed by the petitioner is in no way related to the land covered by Ext.P1 or Ext.P2. As per Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, the land is situated in Pullippadam Village. The land presently claimed by the petitioner is situated in Vettilappara Village. 7. Going by Ext.P1 document, the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property is the property of Chelapurath Chackochan. The northern boundary is the property of Tharappel Joseph. However, the land presently claimed by the petitioner in Vettilappara Village is surrounded by Vested Forest on all four sides. Therefore, the property covered by Ext.P1 and the property presently claimed by the petitioner in Vettilappara Village cannot be one and the same. Same is the case with Ext.P2. 8. From Ext. P1, it is seen that some persons executed a power of attorney in the name of the petitioner's husband. On the strength of the above power of attorney, the petitioner's husband sold the properties belonging to the said persons, to the petitioner. 9. It is submitted that the extent of land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed is 2.0235 h.a. Ext.P3 receipt shows that based on Ext. P1 document, the petitioner remitted tax for [2.0235 + 2.7335 =] 4.7570 h.a. of land in Pullippadam Village. 10. Ext.P4 possession certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner for [2.0235 + 1.0123 + 0.9112 + 0.8100 =] 14.7570 ha. of land in Pullippadam Vilage. The petitioner now says that out of the above 4.7540 ha. of land, 2.0235 ha. falls in Vettilappara Village. 10. Ext.P4 possession certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner for [2.0235 + 1.0123 + 0.9112 + 0.8100 =] 14.7570 ha. of land in Pullippadam Vilage. The petitioner now says that out of the above 4.7540 ha. of land, 2.0235 ha. falls in Vettilappara Village. It cannot be comprehended as to how a portion of the above property [2.7335 ha.] covered by Ext.P4 possession certificate and bearing the same survey number continues in Pullippadam Village and the remaining extent [2.0235 ha.] is shifted to Vettilappara Village. 11. It is submitted that the story of Re-survey is baseless, as no Re-survey is effected either in Pullippadam Village or in Vettilappara Village. 12. It is submitted that Pullippadam and Vettilappara Villages are separated by a natural boundary, namely, Uthradam river. Pullippadam Village lies on the eastern side of Uthradam river. Vettilappara village lies on the western side of Uthradam river. The land presently claimed by the petitioner in Vettilappara Village not lying adjacent to the boundary of the two villages. The land presently claimed by the petitioner in Vettilappara Village is situated about 1 km away from the boundary of the two villages. Therefore, there is not even a remote possibility for the property covered by Ext.P1 and the property presently claimed by the petitioner in Vettilappara Village, being one and the same. There is absolutely no chance for the property covered by Ext.P1, to fall within Vettilappara Village. The story of mistake in the name of the village, is unfounded. 13. It is submitted that the statement of the 5 respondent in Ext.P7 that the land in question falls within Vettilappara Village, is factually incorrect. The said statement is made by the 5th respondent without consulting the Forest Authorities. Had the 5th respondent contacted the respondents 1, 2 or 3, he would be convinced that the land covered by Ext.P1 is not the land presently claimed by the petitioner in Vettilappara Village.” 4. It is also submitted that if the petitioner has any claim that the property is not an ecologically fragile land or that the property is not a forest land, it is for the petitioner to approach the authorities constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2003 and the Rules thereto or any competent civil court. It is also submitted that if the petitioner has any claim that the property is not an ecologically fragile land or that the property is not a forest land, it is for the petitioner to approach the authorities constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2003 and the Rules thereto or any competent civil court. The Tahsildar, Ernad Taluk has also filed a detailed statement basically in line with the counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur and therefore, the same is not repeated. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Smitha Babu and Sri. Sangeeth C.U. the Special Government Pleader for forest, for the officials of the State, and perused the pleadings and material on record. 6. First of all, it can be seen that the claim raised by the petitioner to the property in question is disputed by the Divisional Forest Officer, the Tahsildar as well as the Village Officer concerned. According to the Divisional Forest Officer, the property in question claimed by the petitioner as belonging to him is a forest land and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any claim against the same. 7. In my considered opinion, the petitioner is raising a claim to the property, on the basis of the Ext.P1 title deed executed in her favour by her husband, apparently on the strength of a power of attorney and also the Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Land Tribunal. According to the forest officials, there is no such property within the Nilambur Forest Division, and therefore, the claim raised by the petitioner that the property is not included as an ecologically fragile land under the Act, 2003 will not help the petitioner to secure the reliefs, in view of the fact that the property is remaining as a forest land. It is well settled in law, that, if and when there are rival claims with respect to landed properties surrounded by inextricable facts, it can only be sorted out by adducing oral evidence, and verification of originals of relevant and appropriate documents, and the remedy of the claimant is to approach the civil court; and further that such issues shall not be attempted to be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. 8. In D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1976) 3 SCC 160 , it was held by the Apex Court in Paragraph 20 that in a case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved, the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief and the right course for the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. It is further found that in the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. In Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 329 , it was held by the Apex Court as follows: “13. These questions in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. 14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. [See: Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal vs. B.D. Agarwal] 15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. [See: Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal vs. B.D. Agarwal] 15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent I (writ petitioner) in the civil court. 16. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and therefore, he be resorted with his possession of the flat by the appellant. 17. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible.” 9. In view of the stiff resistance put forth by the Divisional Forest Officer against the claims raised by the petitioner by making pointed arguments and submissions; in the light of the judgments discussed above and since the issues raised are surrounded by complex fact situations, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner, is not entitled to secure any reliefs as are sought for in the writ petition. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach any competent authority under law, or a competent civil court to ventilate the grievances.