IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 826 of 2009. Date of decision: 7.4.2010. Thakur Dass …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that respondents are constructing a Danga illegally on land comprised in khasra Nos. 832, 830, 834 and 910 measuring 1-1.3 bighas out of total land measuring 3 bighas situate at village Bajhol, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, HP. The petitioner has further alleged that land has not been acquired and he is owner of the said land. The respondents have no right to raise construction on any portion of the aforesaid land and to interfere in the possession of petitioner. In the petition, the prayer has been made that respondents may be directed not to interfere in the land of the petitioner by raising construction of Danga Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… in and around the pipes with further direction to the respondents to stop the construction and maintenance. It has also been prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to forcibly enter on all or any part of the property of the petitioner for construction of a water channel/ Danga may be issued with further direction to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and to compensate him for causing damage to his house or in the alternative accommodation may be ordered to be provided to the petitioner. 2. The petition has been contested by the respondents in which preliminary objections of maintainability has been taken and it has been submitted that department has only re-laid the pipes over the raised masonry bed along the same alignment and on the same piece of land on which the pipes were laid earlier in 1981. It has also been stated that petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the land in question. There are other co-owners, who have not been impleaded in the petition. The respondents on merits have submitted that the matter was discussed with the petitioner and beneficiaries, who initially opposed but later on agreed with the proposal of the department. Thereafter an estimate was prepared and got approved by the competent authority on 2.9.2006 and subsequently the work was started and got completed by 22.12.2006 and since then the said scheme is functioning properly. In reply to CMP No. 1448 of 2009, the respondents have also stated that the work was completed in December 2006 and no construction work has been or is being …3… carried out by the department after December 2006. The work had been done with the consent of the residents of the area/ beneficiaries of the said LIS scheme including the petitioner. The petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein he has reiterated his stand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents are unauthorisedly interfering in the possession of the petitioner on the land in question. The respondents have not acquired the land. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the photographs annexed with the petition. 4. It is the stand of the department that scheme is old and in the year 2006 only some repair work was done with the consent of beneficiaries including the petitioner on old lines. The construction has been completed in December 2006 and thereafter no construction has been carried out by the department. The petition has been filed on 25.3.2009 after more than two years. The department has taken the stand that construction work was carried out with the consent of the petitioner, which the petitioner is denying. There are disputed facts, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition. The petitioner has alternative remedy with respect to his alleged grievance. 5. In these circumstances, since there is effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner and the petition has been filed more than two years after the completion of the work, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed …4… with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court, if permissible under the law. CMP No. 1448 of 2009. 6. Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition. April 7, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.