LPA No.1377 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1377 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4 - 4 - 2011 Bajigar, Siklighar, Harijan and Prajapat Sabha ....Appellant Payal v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE, RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Madhu Dayal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms.Naiya Gill, Advocate for respondent No.5. *** RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, was against the action to remove the encroachments made by the appellant on Payal Fort which is a notified historical monument. LPA No.1377 of 2010 [2] The learned Single Judge found that the action taken was in compliance with an order of this Court dated 4.10.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.17704 of 1997 (Munshi Ram v. State of Punjab and others). The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not interfere in the action taken/proposed to be taken and on the other hand directed for final orders to be passed on the representation filed by the appellant for allotment of alternative plots. By interim order passed in the appeal, the concerned Deputy Commissioner was directed to pass final orders on the representation filed by the representationist, as ordered by the learned Single Judge. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, has been placed on record. From the said order it would be evident that the encroachments made by the appellant have since been removed. As far as, allotment of alternative plots is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, in para 6 of the order, after referring to the several recommendations made in favour of the appellant in this regard, has stated that such allotment can only be made on the basis of a special policy as may be framed by the Government in this regard. In view of the above, no relief to the appellants can be granted, except that it would be, naturally, open to them to pursue the matter for allotment of alternative sites with the Government, in terms of such policy, as may be framed by the Government in the future. At this stage, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, as the writ petitioner, had raised a specific issue that their land does not fall within the area of the Fort/Kila. A grievance has been raised that the learned Single Judge did not decide the said issue. LPA No.1377 of 2010 [3] Whether the land which the appellant – writ petitioner is/was occupying, fall within the area of Fort/Kila, is a question of fact that has already been decided by the primary authorities including the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 8.11.2010. Such determination of facts should not be reopened in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the appellant – writ petitioner entertains any grievance on the aforesaid score, it will be open for him to move the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. LPA is disposed of in the above terms and directions. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 4, 2011. JUDGE RC