Civil Writ Petition No. 1514 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1514 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.01.2010 Didar Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action for removing the encroachments over the public street allegedly encroached by respondents No. 5 to 13. It is averred in the writ petition that khasra No. 575 in the area in question is owned by Haryana Wakf Board. On the west side of this khasra number, there is national highway. The Haryana Wakf Board has allotted plots to different persons in khasra No. 575. The petitioner also has been allotted a plot there. In between the house of the petitioner and hospital (Jindal hospital), there is a public street present in Khasra No. 578. According to the petitioner, respondents No. 5 to 13 have encroached upon the said street by constructing walls and sheds therein. He thus, prays for a direction for removing of the encroachments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that despite the Civil Writ Petition No. 1514 of 2010 2 efforts of SDM, Kaithal, who has sought police help also to remove the encroachments, it has yielded no result so far. Thus, a direction in the nature of mandamus needs to be issued. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. It is obvious that SDM, Kaithal is already ceased of the matter and he had even sought police help for removing the alleged encroachment. Since the concerned authorities are looking into the matter, no case for issuing direction in the nature of mandamus is made out. Besides locus standi of the petitioner to prefer the instant petition is not clear. It appears that petitioner is personally interested in the litigation and has invoked the writ jurisdiction in furtherance thereof. The question of encroachment, in any case, is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction of this court. In case, the concerned authorities who are already looking into the matter, come to the conclusion that there is encroachment in the street in khasra No. 578, I am of the considered view that there is ample coercive machinery available with them to remove the encroachments in question. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed. January 29, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE