JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying, inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 17.02.2014 contained in Memos No. 27 to 48 (Annexure-7) and thereafter allow the Petitioner to make payment of the deficit Stamp Duty as per the determination under Section 47(A) of the Jharkhand Stamp Duty Act, without any rider with respect to the nature of the land appertaining to Khata No. 114. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has its genesis in an agreement entered with several persons for 14.32 acres of land. The land appertaining to Khata No. 114 were recorded as Gair Abad Malik Khata in the last survey and settlement operation despite the fact that the Form-B returns were filed by the then zamindar and the rent for the land was fixed by the Respondent No. 4 in Rent Assessment Case No. 133 of 1958-59, wherein various family members of the ex-zamindar were accepted as raiyat for 117.21 acres of land. He further submits that the land forming subject matter of the writ petition is part of the joint property of the ex- zamindar & was partitioned amongst 4 (four) of his descendants (named in Para-11 of the Petition as Mahadeo Pandey, Bishwanath Pandey, Bullu Devi and Srilad Pandey); whereby 21.15 acres of land appertaining to various khatas was allotted to each of them. The rent for the land was fixed and their names were entered in the tenant’s ledger. The Respondent-State also started to accept rent. The Petitioner purchased the land ad-measuring an area of 14.43 acres from such descendants through 45 (forty- five) Sale Deeds which was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) for registration. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that in so far as Khata No. 2, 26, 71, are concerned the Petitioner claims it to be raiyati lands. The Registrar got 3 (three) Sale Deeds registered after realizing the deficit stamp duty. However, no action was taken with respect to the remaining Sale Deeds; as such the Petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 3043 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed off on 2.1.2013 to take a decision within a period of 90 (ninety) days. However, no action was taken with respect to the remaining Sale Deeds; as such the Petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 3043 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed off on 2.1.2013 to take a decision within a period of 90 (ninety) days. However, when no action was taken the Petitioner initiated a contempt case against the Respondent. It was only after the initiation of the contempt proceedings; the impugned order was passed wherein a demand for the deficit Stamp duty was made with respect to 23 (twenty-three) Sale Deeds making the impugned order dated 17.2.2014 part of the deed. The remaining 19 (nineteen) sale deeds are still unattended and are illegally kept by the Respondents, for which a contempt case being Cont (Civil) Case No. 294 of 2023 has been filed. It has been strongly contended by the Petitioner that the Sale Deed of certain other portions of the land appertaining to Khata No. 114 within mouza-Panduki, Govindpur (just as those purchased by the Petitioner) executed in favour of one Krishna Murari Choudhary has been registered. 5. The learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on Memo No. 95 dated 29.8.2011 (Annexure-5) to show one plot i.e. Plot No. 259, which is treated as gairabad land and the registration of the Petitioner is denied on the said ground; whereas the same land has been demarcated and has been allowed on the application of Krishna Murari Choudhary considering it to be raiyati. It is also the case of the Petitioner that several other deeds such as sale deed number 3962 dated 14.3.2011 and sale deed number 3450 dated 8.11.2014 which is concerned with the land appertaining to Khata No. 114 has been duly registered by the Respondent in favour Krishna Murari Choudhary without any reservations. When the representations made by the Petitioner fell to deaf ears, the Petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) 6381 of 2016 for quashing of the order dated 14.2.2017. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 13.7.2019 wherein this Court was directed that a deficit stamp fee of ? 15,854/- (INR Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Four Only) is payable and the entry to that effect shall be made, however, the rest of the order shall not form part of the sale deed. 6. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 13.7.2019 wherein this Court was directed that a deficit stamp fee of ? 15,854/- (INR Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Four Only) is payable and the entry to that effect shall be made, however, the rest of the order shall not form part of the sale deed. 6. It has been contented by the Petitioner that the writ petition being WP(C) 6381 of 2016 was for all 23 (twenty-three) sale deeds, however, the order made reference to only one case i.e. abhilekh case no. 20/1993-94 and hence the instant writ petition was filed for the remaining 22 (twenty-two) sale deed. The specific case of the Petitioner is that he is being discriminated and one Krishna Murari Choudhary in conspiracy with certain officials posted as Circle Officer, Govindpur are indulging in the creation of false deeds getting the lands illegally mutated. Further, the Petitioner has submitted that order is wholly without jurisdiction and the Respondent cannot be allowed to conduct any enquiry during registration. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Respondent-State) has submitted that the land forming subject matter of the instant writ petition is in the prohibited list of NGDRS and the registration of such lands is barred. 8. Learned counsel for the Intervenor (Respondent No. 5) submits that he had filed an intervention petition being IA No. 13435 of 2024 which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2025. He vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and has contended that certain averments have been made in Para 35 to 37 of the writ petition against Respondent No. 5. He has further submitted that the land forming subject matter of the deed being 4556 dated 28.3.2011 executed between Yadav Chandra Pandey and 35 others in favour of M/s Maa Jagdamba Flour Mills (P) Limited. The land was further mutated in favour of the company and rent receipts have been issued in the name of the company till 2021. Certain lands have been purchased by the Petitioner from Manilal Pandey vide registered sale deed number 1560/1224 dated 7.4.2015 for which also the rent receipts have been issued. Further, another company of Respondent No. 5, namely M/s Bhavishya Rice Mills Limited had purchased lands forming subject matter of this writ petition by sale deed number 4180/3692 dated 14.3.2011. Certain lands have been purchased by the Petitioner from Manilal Pandey vide registered sale deed number 1560/1224 dated 7.4.2015 for which also the rent receipts have been issued. Further, another company of Respondent No. 5, namely M/s Bhavishya Rice Mills Limited had purchased lands forming subject matter of this writ petition by sale deed number 4180/3692 dated 14.3.2011. Respondent No. 5 has given the details of other sale deeds such as Sale Deed No.6818/6064 dated 03.05.2011, 8260/7348 dated 25.05.2011, 6398/5388 dated 21.04.2011,8486/7820 dated 01.06.2011, 13819/13106 dated 04.10.2008, 1301/1143 dated 03.02.2010, 6701/5982 dated 30.04.2010, 13820/13107 dated 04.10.2008, 13749/13045 dated 03.10.2008, 3248/2861 dated 28.02.2011 and 13744/13041 dated 03.10.2008 which has been executed and they are in peaceful possession of the lands in question. 9. It has been further submitted that the Petitioner has concealed the fact that a title suit being Title Suit No. 94 of 2018 and Original Suit No. 333 of 2015 have been filed by the Petitioner, which is currently sub-judice. Further, the Petitioner has failed to disclose that an encroachment case being Encroachment Case No. 2 of 2018-19 was initiated with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 114, Plot No. 315. The Petitioner’s writ petition being WP(C) 4597 of 2018 assailing the order was dismissed vide order dated 14.3.2024 by this Court. It has been further submitted by Respondent No. 5 that the Petitioner has concealed the fact that the mutation of the vendors of the Petitioner has already been cancelled and several sale deeds filed by the Petitioner are forged and fabricated. In light of the above, Respondent No. 5 has prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the submissions and pleadings of the parties. The Petitioner has, in essence prayed, for the registration of the sale deeds which have been presented by the Petitioner before the State Respondent. The material facts on record suggest that there is rival claim over the property forming subject matter of registration. The right, title and interest of the lands forming subject matter of the instant writ petition seems to involve hotly contested disputed questions of fact. The material facts on record suggest that there is rival claim over the property forming subject matter of registration. The right, title and interest of the lands forming subject matter of the instant writ petition seems to involve hotly contested disputed questions of fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 447 has elaborated the law with respect to the power of the Writ Courts to determine disputed questions of fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that involvement of disputed question of law itself would not act as a bar in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is for the Court to determine whether such questions have been raised to create a mere illusion the dispute even when no such real dispute exists. 11. Considering the facts of this case, this Court finds that the dispute pertaining to this case is yet to settle down as the Petitioner is himself contenting at least 2 (two) Title Suits being Title Suit No. 94 of 2018 and Original Suit No. 333 of 2015 with respect to the lands in question. The dispute pertaining to fact is not illusionary and very much real as evident from the action of Petitioner itself. It is trite law that there is a self-imposed restriction of the Court exercising 2025 SCC Online SC 447 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate questions of facts which are required to be proved by evidence. More so, the Petitioner has itself stated that it has assailed the impugned order in another writ petition i.e. WP(C) 6381 of 2016. This Court vide order dated 13.7.2022 has adjudicated the same. A bare perusal of the order dated 13.7.2022 passed in WP(C) 6381 of 2016 will show that the Petitioner was only aggrieved with a part of the order dated 14.2.2014, which was accordingly modified. Now, in the writ petition, the Petitioner has taken a stand that though it had assailed the entire order dated 14.2.2014 but the Court interfered only with a part of the said order. Such plea of the Petitioner is not acceptable. The Petitioner has failed to show that he preferred any review or appeal against the order dated 14.2.2014 passed in WP(C) 6381 of 2016, which has now attained finality. Such plea of the Petitioner is not acceptable. The Petitioner has failed to show that he preferred any review or appeal against the order dated 14.2.2014 passed in WP(C) 6381 of 2016, which has now attained finality. The Petitioner is trying to do something indirectly which he cannot do directly. Once only a part of the impugned order was assailed by the Petitioner and the said issue was adjudicated, the Petitioner cannot assail the same order by filing another writ petition as the same would be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata, which is very much applicable in writ proceedings. 12. In light of the above observations, this Court finds that the instant case is not fit to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed affording the liberty to the Petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. Any observation made by this Court regarding the right, title and interest of the Parties shall not prejudice the case of the party in any pending proceeding before the court of competent jurisdiction. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any stand closed. Parties to bear their own costs.