MSS : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2007 VISHNU TUKARAM PATIL & ANR. .. PETITIONERS Vs. SHRI SHIVMANDIR TRUST KHARGHAR & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. R. S. Thakur for petitioners Smt. Gauri Jadhav for R-1, 8 to 23 Mr.P. P. Kakade, AGP Mr. G. S. Hegde i/b G.S. Hegde & Co. for R-4 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R.S. DALVI, JJ. SMT. R.S. DALVI, JJ. SMT. R.S. DALVI, JJ. DATED:-26-2-2008 P.C.:- . The case of the petitioner is that land Survey No. 326/1 situated at Kharghar belongs to him. On this land an old Shiv Mandir was in existence. According to him respondents 1, 8 to 23 have illegally shifted the deity from Shiv Mandir to the adjoining plot. They have constructed a new temple and installed the deity in that temple. It is also the contention of the petitioners that shifting of the deity was done though there was an order of Division Bench of this court dated 29/1/07 stating that if the deity has not been shifted it should not be shifted. Learned counsel states that this order is dated 19/1/07 and deity was shifted on 31/1/07. MSS : 2 : 2. Learned counsel for respondents 1, 8 to 23 seriously disputes this statement. She also states that the claim of the petitioners that they own the land on which Shiv Mandir is constructed is not correct. In our writ jurisdiction it is not possible for us to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact and decide the question of title. For that purpose, if the parties are so advised they may approach the civil court. 3. We may, however, record that affidavit has been filed on behalf of CIDCO by Surendrasingh Dhansing Patil, Controller of Unauthorised constructions. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit it is stated that the area adjacent to the old Shiv Mandir was reserved for social facility purpose by the CIDCO and a new structure has been constructed on Survey No. 326/1 and the said structure is constructed unauthorizedly i.e. without the permission from the CIDCO. It is further stated that the CIDCO has issued a notice dated 15/1/06 for removal of the said illegal structure and for restoration of the land to its original state. However, it has not received any reply to this notice. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 1, 8 to 23 could not make a statement that the said respondents have replied to the said notice. She, however, stated that the temple stands on Survey No. 325 and not on 326/1. MSS : 3 : 5. It is prayed in the petition that an order be issued directing respondents 3, 4 and 5 i.e. Grampanchayat Kharghar, CIDCO and the Controller of District Raigad to demolish the illegal encroachment and structure erected upon Survey No. 326/1. If as stated by the CIDCO, the said structure is unauthorised, the CIDCO is expected to carry out it’s duties and take the necessary steps in accordance with law. No specific direction to that effect is necessary. However, it must be noted that respondent 1, 8 to 23 are disputing CIDCO’s claim. We reiterate that all these disputed questions cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, disposed of in the aforestated terms. 6. We make it clear that on the merits of the case, we have not expressed any opinion. JUDGE. JUDGE.