IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 1283 of 2007 and 1284 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.5.2009. CWP No. 1283 of 2007 Devi Chand … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. CWP No. 1284 of 2007 Bharat Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. B.S.Ranjan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) Both the petitions are being disposed of together since common question of facts and law are involved. According to the petitioners, land belonging to them in Mauja Golchha, Pargana Kemli, Tehsil and District Shimla, has been utilized by the State for laying down sewerage pipe line. The petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to acquire the land of the petitioners by paying just and due compensation in accordance with law. The respondents in their reply have taken a specific stand that neither 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the sewerage treatment plant nor the sewerage pipe line has been laid over the land of the petitioners. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition. Shri Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had obtained the demarcation of land in the presence of the Additional Assistant Engineer and it has been found that the land of the petitioners has also been utilized and that this demarcation shows that the sewerage treatment plant and the pipe line go through the land of the petitioners. Pleadings are already complete and we see no reason to grant him further time to permit him to place on record the demarcation report. We are taking this view because even if the demarcation report is permitted to be placed on record, the State can still contest the correctness of this report. This is a matter which must be decided in a Civil Court. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a Civil suit. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitions are accordingly rejected with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 29, 2009 ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™