RAJ BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming release of the land of the petitioner allegedly occupied by the respondents without any acquisition proceedings. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 6 and 7, a copy of demarcation report has been attached. As per the said report, the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the Government land and that no part of the land of the petitioner is under occupation of the State without acquisition.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 8.11.2010 under Section 12 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. In view of the said fact, whether the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation or not is a question is required to be decided by the authority issuing show cause notice or in any other proceedings as may be permissible in the law. However, invocation of the writ jurisdiction for the relief claimed is not permissible as disputed questions of fact are raised. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to contest the proceedings in an appropriate forum in accordance with law.