{"id":190594,"date":"2018-02-19T10:43:00","date_gmt":"2018-02-19T05:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=190594"},"modified":"2018-02-19T10:43:00","modified_gmt":"2018-02-19T05:13:00","slug":"matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/","title":{"rendered":"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Karnataka High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein it declined to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner holding that it was not a fit case to be adjudicated under extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The matter involved a land dispute. The respondents submitted that the parties were already engaged in civil suits in trial court regarding the same subject matter, which were still pending. However, the petitioner submitted that the land in question involved in the above said civil suits and that in the instant petition were different.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The High Court perused the record and held that the question whether the land involved in the civil suits and the petition was same or not deserved to be adjudicated by the Civil Court concerned. The Court categorically opined that the matters involving the exercise of extensive fact finding can only be undertaken in properly instituted civil suits and not in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner was granted. [<em>Chikkannachari <\/em>v.<em> Department of PWD, State of Karnataka<\/em>, WP No. 46292 of 2016, dated 1.2.2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[28574,28564,28584,11801],"class_list":["post-190594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-art-226","tag-extraordinary-jurisdiction","tag-fact-finding","tag-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-02-19T05:13:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/\",\"name\":\"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-19T05:13:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226","og_description":"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-02-19T05:13:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/","name":"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-02-19T05:13:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/19\/matters-requiring-extensive-fact-finding-cannot-adjudicated-art-226\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Matters requiring extensive fact finding cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":217026,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/18\/jk-hc-writ-under-art-226-admissible-only-if-there-is-allegation-of-violation-of-a-statutory-duty-on-the-part-of-statutory-authority\/","url_meta":{"origin":190594,"position":0},"title":"J&#038;K HC | Writ under Art. 226 admissible only if there is allegation of violation of a statutory duty on the part of statutory authority","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. dismissed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against official respondents for restraining private persons from encroaching of the suit property of the petitioner. The petitioner herein had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":154224,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/06\/exercise-of-establishing-facts-before-the-civil-courts-cannot-be-bypassed-by-invoking-writ-jurisdiction-under-article-226-of-the-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":190594,"position":1},"title":"Exercise of establishing facts before the civil courts cannot be bypassed by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution","author":"Saba","date":"September 6, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Vineet Kothari, J. dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has not allowed the respondent Authorities to consider the case on merits and proceed further\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":249146,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/02\/leading-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":190594,"position":2},"title":"Ori HC | Where disputed questions of facts are involved, a petition under Art. 226 of Constitution is not a proper remedy; Leading of evidence and examination and cross-examination of witnesses required","author":"Editor","date":"June 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ. and B. P Routray J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the petitioner since the time of his forefathers is in peaceful possession over a piece of land. Being a landless\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":206051,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/01\/relief-sought-against-a-registered-society-a-matter-of-civil-dispute-which-cannot-be-adjudicated-by-way-of-article-226-constitution-of-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":190594,"position":3},"title":"Relief sought against a Registered Society| A matter of civil dispute cannot be adjudicated by way of Article 226","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. dismissed a writ petition on account of it being a civil dispute. The petitioner was a Dimri (Brahmin) having a customary right of vriti (worship) at Sri Badrinath Ji temple who was denied the right to discharge\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":219415,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/jhar-hc-writ-petition-under-art-226-dismissed-on-ground-of-availability-of-an-alternative-remedy\/","url_meta":{"origin":190594,"position":4},"title":"Jhar HC | Writ Petition under Art. 226 dismissed on ground of availability of an alternative remedy","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court:\u00a0Sujit Narayan Prasad, J, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In the pertinent case, the petitioner moved to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the decision taken by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":205100,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/14\/court-not-to-interfere-in-writ-jurisdiction-where-civil-proceedings-are-pending-for-the-same-subject-matter\/","url_meta":{"origin":190594,"position":5},"title":"Court not to interfere in writ jurisdiction where civil proceedings are pending for the same subject matter","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: A petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. wherein extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked. Petitioner had invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court in order to seek issuance of directions to respondent not to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}