CW 11436/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11436/2009 Smt. Rajrani Versus State & Ors Date of Order : 23/03/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kawal S. Loha, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.25/03/2008 (Ann.4) of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. As alleged in the petition, the petitioner is having half share in an agricultural land bearing Khasra No.544/1 measuring 16 bighas, 1 biswas at Soldier Farm, Daulatpura Tehsil Khandar (Sawai Madhopur); however, respondents constructed a road bye- passing her land, for which objection was raised that compensation has never been paid to the land owner upon construction of the road. Indisputably, the petitioner raised the dispute through legal notice dt.04/02/2008 after a lapse of 10 years of the road being laid and in response thereto, the Collector communicated vide letter dt.25/03/2008 (Ann.4) that as regards Khasra No.540 & 543, there was no road found being ever constructed bye- passing the land of these khasra numbers; and as regards Khasra No.539, over which construction of the road was made, for which CW 11436/09 //2// adequate compensation had already been paid to its claimant; while as regards Khasra No.544, the land measuring 3 bighas & 10 biswas being Siwai Chak is of the Government; as such there was no occasion for payment of compensation. Counsel submits that despite the road being constructed over petitioner’s land without adopting the procedure under the land acquisition Act, no compensation has been paid to her. In the opinion of this Court, what has been urged by Counsel involves disputed questions of fact in regard to agricultural land, over which construction of the road was made; and as regards alleged non-payment of compensation, which cannot be adjudicated upon in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds no justification to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to avail of remedy under the law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/ 11436CW2009Mar23DsRmdy.doc