JUDGMENT
1. By making the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the order, dated 7.9.2001 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 4 and commanding the respondent to allot the land, in question, in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Government’s Circular No. 47/84, dated 25.10.1994.
2. The material facts leading to this writ petition may, in brief, be stated as follows:
(i) By order, dated 5.5.1999, passed in WP(C) No. 2039/99, the respondent No. 4, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare district, was directed by this Court to consider petitioner’s case for regularisation of the land, in question, in terms of the Circular, dated 25.10.1994, and any other relevant circular that may have been in force. It was further directed by this Court vide its order, dated 5.5.1999, aforementioned that until further order, which
may be passed by the respondent No. 4, petitioner’s possession over the land, in question, shall not be disturbed.
(ii) On receiving the order, dated 5.5.1999. aforementioned, respondent No. 4 passed an order, dated 20.1.2001, rejecting the petitioner’s application for regularisation and directing him to vacate the land, in question. The order so passed on 20.1.2001 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) was impugned before this Court in WP(C) No. 40(AP) 2001, whereupon this Court passed an order, on 16.5.2001, observing and directing therein as quoted hereinbelow:
“A perusal of the impugned eviction order dated 20.1.2001 would go to show that the learned Deputy Commissioner has not indicated any reason/basis for rejection of the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his occupation over the land in question in terms of the Govt. Circular dated 25.10.1994. An order devoid of reasons cannot have judicial approval. The learned Deputy Commissioner was required to reflect in his order the manner in which the case of the petitioner was considered and the reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s case. That not having been done by the learned Deputy Commissioner, this Court has no option but to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.1.2001. The aforesaid order will, therefore, stand quashed and the writ petition stand allowed.
Needless to say, it will be open for the Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh orders as directed by this Court by order dated 5.5.1999 passed in WP(C) No. 2039/99 in accordance with law.”
(iii) In pursuance of the order, dated 16.5.2001, aforementioned, the respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner and, upon hearing, passed an order, on 7.9.2002 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) holding to the effect, inter alia, that the petitioner could not prove that he was in possession of the land, in question, before 1994, whereas the said land stood allotted to the State Bank of India as far back as in 1986. The petitioner’s application for allotment of the said land was accordingly rejected. It is this order, which stands impugned in this writ petition.
3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. L. Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Before entering into the merit of this writ petition, it is important to bear in mind that the petitioner, as indicated hereinabove, sought
regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of the land, in question, in terms of the Government Circular, dated 25.10.1994 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). By this Circular, the Government directed the Deputy Commissioner to regularise the unauthorised occupation of the land within the capital complex. This shows that for seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation, the person concerned must be in occupation of the land in question on 25.10.1994, i.e., the date on which the Circular came into force. This circular was, however, subsequently withdrawn by the Government, but the case of the petitioner had to be considered and was, indeed, considered in terms of the Circular aforementioned.
5. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, dated 8.12.2000, aforementioned, I. find that the respondent No. 4 has assigned cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner could not prove that he was in possession of the land before 1994 and that he applied for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of the land as late as on 9.11.1999. The findings of the respondent No. 4 cannot be said to be wholly without foundation and/or perverse. This Court could have, perhaps, interfered with the impugned order, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, if the impugned order could have been shown to be arbitrary, perverse and/or without being supported by any reasons. This apart, it needs to be borne in mind that while exercising writ jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal or Court of facts and hence, this Court will not, in the present case, enter into the determination of disputed questions of fact. It is candidly conceded by the learned, counsel for the petitioner that the question whether the petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, in possession of the land, in question, is a disputed question of fact.
6. Because of what have been pointed out above, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is left at liberty to take appropriate action in Civil Court, if he is so advised.
7. With the above observations, and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of.
8. No order as to costs.