IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17808 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.09.2010. Rahul Chaudhary ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ******* PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks compensation for the alleged unlawful demolition of the part of his building of the Farm House. The petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the premises comprising Khasra No.1378 Min to the extent of 3 Bighas 11 Biswas said to be purchased vide sale deeds dated 25.06.1990, 14.07.1990 and 14.07.1990 (Annexures P-1 to P-3), mentioned in Para 2 of the writ petition. Mutations in favour of the petitioner have also been duly recorded in the revenue record. It is alleged that petitioner had developed a Farm House by the name “Chaudhary Farms” over the aforesaid land. The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of Khasra Girdawri to support claim of his possession. It is alleged that respondents No.2 to 4 without any notice and orders under the relevant provisions of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act damaged the property of the petitioner forcibly and illegally. It is further stated that respondents have further threatened to interfere and cause further damage to the property of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner is for award of compensation for the damage caused to his property by alleged illegal and Civil Writ Petition No.17808 of 2010 -2- unjustified act of the respondents. The entire issue depends upon the evidence. Firstly, the impugned action of the respondents is to be established and secondly, the damage is required to be assessed. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that there has been illegal demolition, still the question remains the quantum of damage, which can only be determined and assessed on the basis of the evidence. Writ Court cannot go into this question, which is purely and simply dependent upon the evidence. In this view of the matter, I declined to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the Civil Court. 30.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE