1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1956/2009 (Mohd. Farooq Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 13.03.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sunil Mehta, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents authority directing the demolition of the petitioner's house in the light of the decision made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9951/2008 dated 15.1.2009 be declared illegal; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.1 be directed to initiate the inquiry against the erroring respondents or the Officers who without under standing the orders of the High Court made in 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9951/2008 dated 15.1.2009 has illegally and arbitrary acted in conivence with the Mastan Baba Trust; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to informed the out come of the report to this Hon'ble Court within a stipulated time as the Hon'ble Court deems fit; (iv) that if it is found in the inquiry that action of the respondents Officers was against the establish principle of law than the cost of construction of the petitioner's Farm House should be recovered from the said Officers and be awarded to the petitioner; (v) that by appropriate writ, order or direction the order of Tehsildar dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside.” Admittedly, a writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.9951/2008 was filed before this Court by Sayyed Khawaja Mohd. Abdul Rauf @ Mastan Baba Trust, Udaipur. The said writ petition was decided by order dated 15.1.2009, which reads as follows : “Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press prayer No.1. However, for prayer No.2, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are judgment of this Court for not allowing any construction in 3 the catchment area of Fatehsagar Lake, Udaipur and for the same petitioner has already moved a representation to the District Collector, Udaipur. In this view of the matter and, however, in the interest of justice, petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation to the District Collector, Udiapur for not allowing any constitution in the prohibited zone. Upon filing such representation, the District Collector, Udaipur shall decide the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.” The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner is not situated in the catchment area and his house is not situated in the catchment area, therefore, even if in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, any action was to be taken by the respondents, then also there was no question of demolishing the house of the petitioner but the respondents have demolished the house of the petitioner while taking shelter of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9951/2008. In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised several disputed questions of fact with regard to the land in question. The disputed questions of 4 fact cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may agitate his matter before the Civil Court. No order as to cost. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun