CWP No.208/2009 01.06.2011 Present: Mr. Gurdev Singh Thakur counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Virender K. Verma, counsel for respondent No.3. Mr. Rajender Singh Chandel, counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a) The respondents may be directed to pay compensation/damages as per average value of the land and also acquire the land under the provisions of law. b) The respondents may also be directed to also provide substitute land for the earning of loaf of bread. c) That in the meanwhile some interim compensation damages may be ordered for the livelihood of petitioner and his family. d) The respondent-II and respondent-III may be burdened with heavy cost for their arbitrary/forcible act and compelling the petitioner for litigation. e) Any other writ/order as the Hon’ble Court may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be granted.” 2. According to the petitioner, possession of his land was forcibly taken away by the State for construction of the road. While constructing the road, the contractor also damaged his remaining land rendering the same to be unusable. 3. The State and the contractor, while filing separate affidavits, have seriously disputed these facts. According to them, the road in question was actually constructed sometime in the year 2004, when the Panchayat requested the State for release of funds for construction of the road. The funds were utilized by the Panchayat for construction of the road through Block Aided Scheme and petitioner was consenting party to the same. It is true that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had consented to the same in writing, but nonetheless it is equally true that petitioner did not raise the issue of his land being forcibly taken away by the State for construction of the road till the year 2008. He allowed the road to be constructed. Not only he, but also co-villagers benefited out of the same. Significantly, it was only in the year 2007-2008, when the very same road was brought under the NABARD Road Assistance Programme for improvement, petitioner woke up and raised the issues of unauthorised encroachment and damage to his land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2058 of 2009, decided on 20.7.2009, copy of which is taken on record. The ratio laid down therein does not apply to the instant case, as the State in the said case had made a statement that steps for acquisition of the land would be taken within a period of one year. This is not the position here. That apart, the Court had directed that no construction activity shall take place till such time the consent is taken in writing. The directions would obviously apply for roads to be constructed in future. 5. Since serious disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition, the issues raised in this petition cannot be adjudicated upon. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, save and except that liberty is granted to him to take recourse to such remedies, as are available to him, in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. June 1, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (pankaj) Judge.