CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17631 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17631 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 11, 2011 Ved Parkash & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to make a grievance that construction carried out by them has been illegally and unauthorizedly demolished by the respondents. In reply, the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioners had carried out unauthorized construction of a room and a wall, for which due notice was served on them and even opportunity was given to them to demolish the unauthorized construction. When the petitioners failed to respond to the notice, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17631 of 2010 -2- action was taken to demolish the unauthorized construction. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Prayer for an adjournment has been made by counsel for the petitioners to file replication, which is declined. Whether the petitioners had carried out any construction, which is authorized in any manner or not, would be a disputed question of fact. Whether the construction in question was unauthorized in terms of the provisions contained in the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, will have also to be determined. These disputed questions of facts can more appropriately be gone into by Forums like Civil Court. Writ Court is not to be in appropriate position to decide these disputed questions of facts. The right to receive compensation as prayed for in the writ petition, would also depend upon whether the construction was authorized or unauthorized. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to their alternative remedy of filing civil suit, where these facts can be adequately proved and established. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. May 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE