WPMS 1288/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Mohd. Umar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Manish Arora, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent no. 1 should be restrained from demolishing the residential house of the petitioner. The respondents are alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon a public land. Whatever may the situation, the petitioner is in fact praying for a relief of injunction, which cannot be granted in a writ jurisdiction. Since disputed facts are involved, the appropriate remedy is to file a civil suit. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 29-06-2011 SP