IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 856 of 2010. Sri Upendra Kumar and four others. … Petitioners. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and three others. …Respondents. Mr. Aditya Singh & Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder for the State, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, for the respondent no.4- UPCL. Date October 05, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Misc. Application No. 6439 of 2010) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to compensate the petitioners for illegal possession of their land forming part of Plot No. 279/1 at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per day or any rate quantified by this Court. According to the petitioners, the Mela Adhikari, Kumbh Mela-2010 had made temporary acquisition of the land of plot no. 279/1 belonging to petitioners in the garb of plot no. 279/12. It is also stated that the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. VI, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 8 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiff- petitioners herein against the State for permanent injunction, it was held that there is no property belonging to the State-respondent of plot no. 279/12 and that the petitioners are the owners of plot no. 279/1. The grievance of the petitioners is that possession of their land of plot no. 279/1 was taken over by the State for purpose of Kumba Mela-2010 under the provisions of Section 35(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) in the garb of plot no. 279/12 on 30-11-2009. On behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that no part of plot no. 2 279/1 was interfered with by taking its possession, rather the possession of plot no. 279/12 belonging to the revenue department was taken over for purposes of Kumbh Mela-2010 vide Government Notification No. 1385/IV(1)/34 (Haridwar Kumbh Mela)/03 dated 22- 10-2009 under Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. According to the petitioners, so far as the ownership of the petitioners over the disputed land is concerned, it appears that the finding recorded by the civil court in Original Suit No. 8 of 1989 has attained finality and the petitioners are held to be the owners of the plot no. 279/1. It was also held that the State Government does not own any property over plot no. 279 and that the State Government has failed to establish its case pertaining to plot no. 279/12 by any reliable documentary evidence. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have claimed compensation in this writ petition for use and occupation of their land under temporary acquisition by the State Government. The controversy requires appraisal of evidence of fact. In writ jurisdiction, disputed questions of fact cannot be decided. In the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is given to the petitioners to make a representation/application before the appropriate authority for claiming compensation, as sought in the present writ petition. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP