^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner Writ Petition No. 5090 of 2004 1. Sm.t. CIiandrakala Davda, axed 59 years, W/o Shri Kanttlal Davda, R/o Shop No. 10, A-Market, Shriram Chowk, BIulai. 2. Dr. Sonal Davda, D/o Shri KantUaI Davda, Caaada, Through her attomey K.D., aged 61 years, R/o Shop No. 10 A-Market, Sbriram Chowk, Bhilai Versus Respoudents 1, State of Chhattisgarh, Thiough CoBector, Ducg, 2. LaiidAcquisition Of&cer, Distfc Dui^. 3. Chief Engmeer, National Highwa}r No. 6, Four-laue, Developineiit, Raipur. WRITPETITON UNDER ARTICLE226 / 2!27 QPTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA. ! (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Slui Pawaa Verma, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi, GoVt. Advocate for the respondents. O R DER (Passed on thisl2th Day ofNovember, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter 1s heard finally. 2. The pctitioner, by this petition, secks a direction to restram. the respondents Iroin makiag draias on the petitioners' land aad to pay just conipensation to fhe petitioners. 3. - Accordiug to learaed counsel appearmg- tbr thc petitioners, the petitioners are owners of the Jand bearing survey inunbeis 669fl aud 669/2 having area of 0.198 aad 198 hectares in vifflage iJaajgiri. The respondents without acquuiug the laad Iiave startEd digging draias on the petitkm schedule land, owned by ] fhe petitioiiers. Thus, this petition fbr iujunction i^ainst |1ihe respondexite aad in the eveitt the saine has been carned outi ttie petitioner inay be graated just aad proper coinpensation. |!i; 1; i 4. - 1. Shri Alok Bakshi, Jearaed counsel appeanng for the respondeuts/State, on iastructions, subinits ttiat the land in question have not been acquired by the respondents and the respondents are not d^giag drains on the petition schedule land. Be that as it inay, since the disputed question of tacts is iavolved, it cauaot be decided by this Coiirt iu writ jurisdiction. Thus, this petition is disinissed as not inatutamiable on account of involveinent of disputed question of tacts. However, Uberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the jurisdictional civil Court under the provisions of law, ifso advised. Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur